which is better, a light microscope or a eletron microscope?
343006
electron microscope works by passing a beam of electrons through specimen, it's much powerful than a light microscope that passes a beam of light through the specimen. with the light microscope you can even study live specimen, which is impossible with the electron microscope.
754664
Los Alamos national lab has a good periodic table/ elemental factoids.\n\nLanthanum is La.  It is the beginning of the "Lanthanides".
957566
An L.E.D. light can run 200 hrs on a set of batteries, but isn't terribly bright.\nA Xenon lamp is Extremely bright, but kills batteries fast.\n\nYou can get either one for ten bucks or so. play it safe...\nGet them both.
83641
hi there. may be I can help you a little bit. I am taking a class about III-V compound right now. so what I got is this technology is good as optoelectronic. where in elemental devices such as Sillicon is not that good, therefore usually we use III-V compund such as GaAs as laser diode or something that has connection with light emitting or light receiver. but this explanation is still too general. I think if I am not misunderstood that it has better reception for photon is because the EL2 (electrical Level2) deep level which is relatively very sensitive to light. hope this is help you a little bit.
420181
no and yes,\nyou cannot "see" it with a big microscope and your eyes since the wavelength of light is larger than an atom. \n\nBUT using a beam of electrons, which have wavelengths smaller than an atom, you can use equipment that can detect the reflected electrons. this is the concept behind an electron microscope, like the previous poster talks about.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope
598430
Copper has a higher melting and boiling point and better electrical conductivity.\n\nIf you are a die caster, Zinc would be better because it can be easily pressure die-cast and hence better accuracy in the cast component with minimal metal removal for finishing.
985265
The above link lists the five basic types of instruments that are called "microscopes"; but each of them has many variations. For example, the compound microscope includes stop contrast, phase contrast, differential interference contrast, darkfield, and fluorescence microscopes, to name a few.  There are also atomic force microscopes and scanning tunneling microscopes that are variations on the transmission electron microscope, xray microanalysis microscopes that are variations on scanning electron microscopes, etc., etc.
873628
When you used an optical microscope in biology class they usually have paramecia and amoeba that are alive and in a slide with a bubble for them to swim in. Most of what you see in biology study involves living cells.\n\nMost of what professionals see are dead cells that are stained to highlight certain features.\n\nOnly electron microscopes must only look at dead cells.
953311
A good dissection microscope with magnification ranges from 5x to 40x is what you are looking for.  Magnifications higher than 40x are useless for most work.  Binocular microscopes are a must for intense study.  One with its own light source is also a must.  Unlike regular microscopes, the light source on a dissection microscope should shine above the specimen not underneath. \n \nAs to brands, most companies that work with optics (Olympus, Nikon, Leica, etc) also make microscopes.  Just be warned, if you are thinking about a professional dissection microscope for your daughter, be ready to dish out anywhere from $500 to $2000 depending on the quality and features... shop around.
768677
Gallium based semi-conductor right now is too expensive to deploy. \n\nIf you want completely out of the left field, I'd go for optical processing.
906177
compound light microscope
968024
Most microscopes for fluorescent techniques can also be used for regular optical viewing.  Just make sure that the exact model you get has both types of light sources that you require.
1085897
no. think of the synapse. electric synapse in general. The speed of electricity is much slower than the speed of light. So, if you could think at the speed of light, you would be well beyond the fastest thinker of any kind. The link I provided will give you a little insight about the synapse and the speed of light
338178
http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/microscope.htm
455121
I think the other answerers have a few misconceptions.\n\nThe problem with your question is the use of the word "seen."\nSo I will answer your question in two parts.\n\n1) The best visible wavelength (optical) microscopes cannot see atoms. The best they can probably do, is see some of the fine detail of biological cells, nothing more.\n\n2) Using the term loosely, electron microscopes or atomic force microscopes can "see" atoms, and even electron clouds, but one should not take the word "see" too literally.\n\nAn atomic force microscope works by moving a very fine tip  over a sample. Without going into the specifics of it, a computer can build up a model of the shape and dimensions of atoms in the sample by measuring the forces that the atoms exert on the tip.\n\nSo I will state the answer to your question as this:\n\nWe CAN OBSERVE computer images of atoms; by this i mean that we can view computer images of atoms - but these are more like graphs of interatomic forces than actually viewing atoms.\nThe highest precision that can currently be achieved is viewing the electron clouds of various atoms. We cannot directly observe anything smaller than this.\n\nSo, you might ask, how do we know about the existence of particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, or even quarks?\nWell, that's because their existences can be inferred from various experiments.\n\nE.G. Rutherford's Alpha Scattering experiment showed that atoms consist of mostly empty space (in support of our massive nucleus and electron clouds model)\n\nAnd particle physicists can use devices a bit like cloud chambers to "observe" fundamental particles like quarks by accelerating e.g. protons high speeds and then making them crash into each other. This liberates particles smaller than protons, giving evidence for the existence of quarks.\n\nHowever, these particles are "observed" by the effect that they have on the surrounding medium, not by direct observation.\n\n\nSo to sum up, the atomic force microscope is the best microscope for "viewing" atoms, but don't take this literally. It's resolution allows us to examine the electron clouds of individual atoms.\n\n\nAlso note that "Electron clouds" is also not to be taken too literally, as anyone who knows anything about quantum mechanics will tell you.
315325
An upright microscope looks down at the stage, slide and specimen, and transmitted light travels upward from a mirror located below the stage. An inverted microscope does the opposite. Its optics include a prism so that a person looking down into the microscope sees the view from below the stage. An advantage of the inverted microscope is said to be the ability to view live specimens in a deep covered container (see ref.). The short working distance of the typical objective lens prevents such viewing in the upright microscope. (However some change in the inverted microscope's objective is needed to accommodate container thickness.)
989503
Plasma and LCD TVs are the latest trend in home entertainment. Both offer unrivalled picture quality and resolution, while doing away with the bulkiness of the older rear-projection technologies. But with all of the hype surrounding these two types of televisions, what is the difference between them? Although they look- and are virtually priced- the same, they are not.\n\nThere differences are found in the way in which they display their pictures. Plasma TV technology is made up of hundreds of thousands of little pixels, each capable of displaying red, green, and blue colors. A plasma monitor often consists of two panels, which are filled with an inert gas, such as xenon or neon. When the pixels are excited by pulses of electricity, the gas becomes liquid, thus generating light. This light in turn then illuminates the pixels, causing them to display the appropriate color to form a picture.\n\nLCD panels function in a very similar manner. A panel of thin-film-transmitters, or TFT, sends electricity to cells filled with liquid crystal. When the cells are struck by the electricity, the liquid crystals allow light to filter through. Unlike the pixels found in plasma TVs, LCD monitors create color by blocking out the appropriate wavelengths from white light.\n\nSo which is better? The answer to this question depends upon what you plan to use TV for. Do you just want to use it to watch movies and television? If so, then a plasma TV might be best, because they are capable of a higher better color saturation and contrast than their LCD counterparts and for displaying moving images. If you plan in spending a lot of time showing digital photography or plan on using the monitor with your computer, then a LCD display might be better suited to these purposes.\n\nBoth plasma and LCD technologies each have their advantages and disadvantages and your decision should ultimately be based on your monitor's application