Talk:Ptychography
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ptychography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Pronunciation Guide
[edit]Would someone who knows how to say it correctly please add a key to the correct pronunciation of ptychography. It's all Greek to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by His Manliness (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
pronounced "tychography", silent P
http://users.ph.tum.de/gu74hih/research.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.54.207 (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- etymological pronunciation (non-Anglicized): p tiKOgraphy
- Greek pronunciation: p tiHOgraphy (h as in horror)
Please add additional Literature proofing the concept ot Ptychography with X-ray on the Nanometer scale...(first proof on that level!!!)
[edit]M. Dierolf, A. Menzel, P. Thibault, P. Schneider, C. M. Kewish, R. Wepf, O. Bunk, F. Pfeiffer. Ptychographic X-Ray Computed Tomography at the Nano-Scale, Nature 467, 436–440, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.116.101 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Mention of relevant patents
[edit]I think this article should include some mention of the patents owned by Phase Focus Ltd. I spent a lot of time this summer writing a sort of intro-to-ptychography software package, only to find out today that I can't actually make it publicly available to the open-source community. Since the academic literature is focused primarily on the methods rather than the politics, I got the impression that the issues were covered under copyright law rather than patent law, and that I would therefore be able to emulate the "essence" of iterative ptychography as long as I didn't copy the "substance."
In the interest of preventing others from making this mistake, I think this would be an important thing to include on the Wiki page. However, due to my recent negative experience, I don't trust myself to write such an addition without casting the patent holders in an unfairly negative light. Is there anyone on this page that would be willing to address this?
Coherent diffractive imaging with a stationary electron beam is not ptychography
[edit]Coherent diffractive imaging with a stationary electron beam is not how ptychography works. Ptychography relies on the phase shift between overlapping beams. There is a separate page for CDI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_diffraction_imaging) and it should not be confused with ptychography
The Miao references (that seem to be added by Miao) are not appropriate in the ptychography article, and should be in the CDI page ~2025-33869-81 (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)