with this microscope can be seen particles 1 nanometer size?
69468
The practical answer to your question is no! Scientifically, the question gets into many topics which might confuse you and some readers, but for others let's elaborate on this answer. First, objects observed by a compound microscope are essentially seen in only two dimentions. Thus, the maximum magnification of this microscoscope for an object one square nanometer would be 2000 times larger in area or 2000nm2 (note that this not referring to its length which is only a little over 45 nanometers. The concept "seen" (sometimes different from detected especially in regards to one nanometer) would be limited by distortion and resolution. Visible wave lengths vary from 400-700 nanometers, so distortion of color and clarity would be substantial. Using the compound microscope, objects typically would need a separation of 150-350 nanometers (in my opinion, this scope meets that qualification) to see any form of structure...that does not mean you can not detect it (e.g. your eyes can see clouds and rainbows but not water molecules). The square nanometer after magnification would have a diameter of about 45nm, but it needs a separation of about 200nm to see any structure in order to identify it. In my opinion, you essentially can not see it even with the best compound microscope.
1404922
5 micron is the largest size, you can use a 1 micron if you wish. If you use anything larger then 5 micron the "bugs" can hide behind the particles! I use a 5 micron filter.
172104
The readout numbers are approx 1/4". I can see them without my reading glasses.
1602756
I do not have a micrometer to measure the probe, but, the answers given by OBX Joe and Larry Bevans are both good, useful information.
1756675
Depends on what you mean by "observe." At the highest magnification, a one millimeter object takes up almost the entire field. You could see the parts of a fruitfly, or tick, but I doubt that you could see a protozoa or amoeba or other small creature. I think the 400 power claim is a bit of a stretch. Actually, a lot.
818946
No, they're not labeled. Even if they were it would be too small to see! A vernier caliper would be one way to get the diameter.
1881944
Yes, I routinely do that, and is the reason I bought the scope. I prepare dispersions of micronized materials for some of my products. My scope came with a calibration slide that has a metallized 50 scale. The human red blood cell is around 7 in diameter and are easily resolved at 1000 X. Measurements can be done using that scale calibration with the software, to about the accuracy of a good eyepiece micrometer. How accurate? That depends on the operator. There are more accurate ways of measuring particle size, such as laser scattering, but for routine characterization of industrial materials, the microscope software is adequate. The 2,500X magnification is not available for the camera, but that image is around the diffraction limit for a 1 particle, anyway, and not much good.
2172687
Yes, but only if good metrological practices are observed. 1 milligram = 0.001 grams, and that is the resolution of this scale.
1693389
Possibly but I would recommend a microscope with at least 60X. You can also find ones for a few more dollars that have LED and UV lighting.
340816
This microscope is very good. It would probably work for what you intend to do with it. I bought it to use with a DVD Biology course I bought.
1896947
The requested information is not included in the enclosed pamphlet. At range of 6 to 8 inches from face focus is not possible. I agree with Rod below. Exactly. Not for craft/jewelry makers only watch repairers.
300181
"Nano damage" is very real. Particulate size is very important in measuring air quality. Particles 2.5 microns and smaller are considered fine particles. Nanoparticles are smaller than this and can enter the lungs. It's not "pseudo" at all and more important than complex interactions with traces of other things.
688086
There are different sizes but these ones are the smaller ones measuring in at approximately a 1 inch cube.
630809
Hi I'm really sorry I've only used this with my telescope, I wish I could answer that but can suspect it should work with many microscopes but not certain.
1111378
This is an approximation, but I would say the smallest is about 1mm and each brush is maybe double in size.
52747
that means that the particles (every single particle that is) is 20% bigger in size than a nano-particle would be
621879
I assume you mean the bifocal area which is 1 inch diameter. The diameter of the magnifying area is stated in the item description.