Why aren't the magnifications of both ocular lenses of a binocular microscpe used to calculate total magnifica
152081
well, each ocular lens usually has the same magnification, otherwise you get a headache as you will see the resulting image in different sizes at each eye.\nAnd each eye sees only through one ocular lens, so how could they possibly affect each other?\nYou only multiply the effect of lenses which are in series (one behind each other).
126059
Magnifying mirrors are concaved inward and work by focusing the light on a point such that the image is larger than the original object.\n\nhttp://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Spherical.html
749920
Yes, that's why.  The first answerer is correct, too--we can't make a lens powerful enough to see an atom--but the reason why we can't is that the wavelength of visible light is larger than an atom.
354436
(m)\n\nField of View or Field Diameter is very important in microscopy as it is a more meaningful number than "magnification".  Field diameter is simply the number of millimeters or micrometers you will see in your whole field of view when looking into the eyepiece lens.  It is just as if you put a ruler under the microscope and counted the number of lines.  \n\nThe chart below will tell you (approximately) what to expect when looking through a microscope with varying combinations of eyepiece and objective lenses.  As an example (in green below), a dual power stereo microscope with 10X eyepiece lenses and 1X and 3X combinations of objective lenses, would have total powers of 10X and 30X and your field of view would be 20 mm and 6.7 mm respectively.  \n\nThis means that an object 20 mm (2 cm, or about 3/4 inch) wide would fill up the whole viewing area at 10X and an object about 6.7 mm wide would fill up the whole area at 30X.  As you can see, having the highest power may not be best for your particular application.  When you move to greater magnifications, you sacrifice field of view.
399868
Actually no, here is a very good example....\n\nFocus on something across the room......\nNow, take a piece of paper and poke a very tiny pin hole in it and look through the pin hole and the same object.\n\nEverything will be much clearer.\n\nIt's kind of how old telescopes and spyglasses worked.
1095598
For part 1, if the cell's diameter was 1/15 of the total field, and the field was 450 microns across, then the cell's actual diameter was 450 microns/15 = 30 microns = 3 * 10^-5 meters.\n\nThe diameter of this cell in the drawing is 0.5 cm = 5*10^-3 meters.  This drawing therefore has a magnification of (5*10^-3)/(3*10^-5) = 166.6666666...times.\n\nFor part 2, The magnification is given by (size in image)/(actual size), so we have that 45000 = (1.5 mm)/a, where "a" is the actual thickness.  Solving for a, we get a = 1.5mm/45000 = 3.333*10^-8 meters = 33.3 nanometers = 0.0333 microns.\n\n-----------------------\n\nAs for the question posed in the "additional details", when the magnification of a microscope is increased, the diameter of the field being imaged decreases (choice "A").
409559
The light gathering power and resolution are determined by the size of the objective lens, but not of its focal length. The ease of going to higher powers is determined by focal length.
873783
If we view this letter "e" with the microscope at 40X, 100X, and \n\n400X, the image appears to be inverted, as happens with most compound \n\nmicroscopes. The complete letter "e" is visible at 40X and 100X, but not at 400X. \n\nThe field of view remains the same, but the image is magnified and only a portion of \n\nthe letter "e" is visible.
320305
The other mathematical formula to remember (the last one, I promise) is the one that tells you the twilight factor of your instrument, i.e.; how much light will be transmitted to your eye. This is found by multiplying the magnification by the size of objective and taking the square root of the result. Again, using the 7x50 as an example, i.e. Ö7x50 = 18.71 twilight factor. The larger the result the better the theoretical light transmission with 15 being good and 25 being excellent. I say theoretical because if you were to compare two optical instruments of like size, the more expensive one would give you a better image due to the quality of glass and internal finish.\n\nAs in all things there are provisos however. The optical advantages between one or other of the top manufacturers are tiny and can be measured by a very few minutes’ difference at last light, and really the choice boils down to which instrument catches your eye or sports the niftiest badge. Secondly, the superior optical performance of an expensive instrument can be degraded by a single scratch. Yes! One scratch on the front lens will degrade the image in your £600 glass to that of a £250 one.
15242
The reason is directly due to the "slant" of your glasses. When they are made, the specialist slightly slants the lens downward, in order to help magnify objects' clearness by the way you see it. That produces the "trapezoid" look on the computer screen. Your best bet is to slightly bend the lens upward. Don't break it. If you do this, however, you will notice that things will not look as clear as normal (slight to moderate difference)
44487
Something is wrong with this question. I see it is 2 months old and would write directly if you allow email.\nI think the question should be about the object not the image. If the object is at the focal length of the lens, then the rays are parallel and easy to see with the eyes. The only image is on the inside of the eye.\nIt doesn't make sense to have length anywhere.
251993
If f is the focal length, i1 is the refractive index of the lens and i2 is the refractive index of the medium, then the sentence is stating that f = k*(1/(i1 - i2)) where k is some constant (of proportionality).\nI believe the equation being described is the Lens Maker's formula here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/lenmak.html#c1 .\nThe power P in that equation is 1/f.
920243
Make a Simple Telescope\nYou will need the following: \ntwo magnifying glasses - perhaps 1 - 1.5 inches (2.5-3 cm) diameter (it works best if one is larger than the other) \na cardboard tube - paper towel roll or gift-wrapping paper roll (it helps if it is long) \nduct tape \nscissors \na ruler, yard stick, or tape measure \nsheet of printed paper - newspaper or magazine will do \nTo assemble your telescope, do the following: \nGet the two magnifying glasses and a sheet of printed paper. \nHold one magnifying glass (the bigger one) between you and the paper. The image of the print will look blurry. \nPlace the second magnifying glass between your eye and the first magnifying glass. \nMove the second glass forward or backward until the print comes into sharp focus. You will notice that the print appears larger and upside down. \nHave a friend measure the distance between the two magnifying glasses and write the distance down. \nCut a slot in the cardboard tube near the front opening about an inch (2.5 cm) away. Do not cut all the way through the tube. The slot should be able to hold the large magnifying glass. \nCut a second slot in the tube the same distance from the first slot as your friend wrote down. This is where the second magnifying glass will go. \nPlace the two magnifying glasses in their slots (big one at front, little one at back) and tape them in with the duct tape \nLeave about 0.5 - 1 inch (1 - 2 cm) of tube behind the small magnifying glass and cut off any excess tube remaining. \nCheck to see that it works by looking at the printed page. You may have to play slightly to get the exact distances between the two glasses right so that the image comes to a focus. \nWith your telescope, you should be able to see the moon and some star clusters as well as birds, etc. \n\n+++++++++++++++++++++++\n\nMake a Simple Microscope\nYou can make a simple microscope by using magnifying glasses and paper: \nGet two magnifying glasses and a sheet of printed paper. \nHold one magnifying glass a short distance above the paper. The image of the print will look a little bit larger. \nPlace the second magnifying glass between your eye and the first magnifying glass. \nMove the second glass up or down until the print comes into sharp focus. You will notice that the print appears larger than it does in the first magnifying glass. \n\nI've included two links below for this and other info.\n\nMyst
964811
No.  The binocular is fine, but for most people 8X is about the highest power to hold by hand.  If you are steady you could try up to 10X but even then you would have to hold it agains something steady.  With 11X it would be very hard to hold them steady enough to really see something.
363353
It's probably the water causing refraction of the scope.  You'll see that at higher magnifications.  I think it's the same principle as a snowflake.
785008
_______I_____I_____()_____I__________________\n              o          f                      f \nas the law of convex lense is that is a ray is passing from optical center<that is the mid of the convex lens >then there will be no change in its direction and if another ray is paralell to principal axis <that is the long straight line>then the ray will pass from principle focus<that is f>then keep on drawing the rays until they converge together at a point that will be ur image ......after taht u can use the formula to calculate it or just measure the distances\n1/image distance+1/object distance=1/focal length\nu can change it to\n1/image distance=1/focal length-1/object distance\n                            =1/3-1/5\n                                   5-3\n                             =_____________\n                                   15\n                             =2\n                               __________\n                                   15\n now we will flip it to\n      15\n_________\n        2\nand then we will get 7.5 answer\ni hopedi helped u i m studying this too right now in 0 levels i have a lot of h.w about it today
340722
It could not go on forever.  As the image gets smaller, at some point it could only be the size of an atom (or perhaps an atom's molecule).  At that point, it could not reflect a subimage.  That aside, asuming your telescope (or microscope?) would magnify each subimage, and there was no significant light loss, you could probably use a function (perhaps logarithmic) to count how many reflections you could discern before the size was imperceptable.  Assuming each subimage is 4/5th of it's parent (of some function of it's parent's size and rank), and you start with a 5 inch mirror, and 10 microns is the smallest discernable image, ...  Perhaps you should cross post this in the math section.