It depends on the power of the microscope an the skill you have in preparing slides.
Around 150x, good slide prepartion becomes crucial.
a quick search on Google reveals many guides to building your own Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM). If you do attempt such a feat the following books might be helpful;
I believe that a home made STM can be made for about $100 and should provide atomic resolution.
Bacteria are generally very small - so you would need an electron microscope to see them in any detail. Under a light microscope you would probably only be able to see the overall shape.
The purpose of an electron microscope is to be able to study structures and cells in greater detail than with a light microscope or the naked eye
The molecular level is the level of magnification (the "zooming in") where, if you were zoomed in to that level, would be able to see the molecules themselves. It's impossible to reach that level using a magnifying glass. Not even a regular microscope is enough. You need a special type of microscope, called an electron microscope, to reach the molecular level.
A compound light microscope is able to provide more clarity and detail than a single lens microscope, which is its advantage. Compound refers to the microscope having more than one lens.
-It enlarges objects and materials to a different magnification level where you would be able to observe them better in a different point of view.
Just like when you are closer to an object you are able to see detail, but when you move farther away from it, you see more of the object but less of the detail. For eg, lets consider an example of a calendar hanging on the wall. When you are close to it, you may just be able to see the calender, with the month and the dates and days. As you move farther away from it, you would slowly not be able to see the dates and days too clearly, but you would also be able to see more of the wall on which the calender is hanging. Hence when you are able to see a larger field of view, you see much lesser detail. In scientific terms, the magnification is smaller. As you increase the microscope magnification, you would be able to see more detail, but lesser field.
No, an electron microscope is needed to see a virus.
it depends on the microscope. if it's just a normal microscope, the scientist probably only able to see the shape, possibility of the nucleus, spore formation, etc.
There are many benefits to this. I am no expert in Biology, but by using a fresh specimen you are able to see in more detail. For example, if you were to look at a leaf which had just been cut off of a plant then you would be able to see in much more detail what it was like when it was actually alive than if you looked at a dead and wilting leaf. I hoped this answered your question!
Without refraction, lenses would not be able to magnify an image.
It is difficult to see detail in cells and tissues due to their microscopic size. This problem can be alleviated with the use of microscope, although certain structures may need a very high magnification and staining to be able to make out clearly.
Yes, of course. Sperm would not be able to be identified without being able to see it.
no, because the penny is not see-through. The compound light microscope uses a light and all you would see is a dark spot that used to be the penny.
A microscope isn't used for navigating/exploring the universe. A microscope is for looking at germs, viruses etc. A telescope is able to look at the sky. A microscope is used in science labs. Not use for space explorering.
Hooke's discovery dealt with cells, which are extremely tiny that it is impossible to be seen with the naked eye. So, without the microscope, he would not have been able to see it.
All. All skills of using a microscope assisst in being able to use a microscope properlly.
If we didn't have the microscope, then we would never have known about viruses, we wouldn't have been able to develop medicines for the sicknesses either.
I would need more detail about why you think something is wrong with you and your hormones to be able to answer this question.
*Without the microscope doctors wouldn't be able to develope medicans for certain diseases because they wouldn'tknow what caused it.* People would die and doctors wouldn't know what caused it to occur.
Impossible* Hooke's discovery dealt with cells, which are extremely tiny that it is impossible to be seen with the naked eye. So, without the microscope, he would not have been able to see it.
The high level of magnification is at a level in order to distinct the image of what you are looking at for example. You would be able to distinguish the shape and be able to see what it might contain within.
I don't see how anyone would be able to help you. Try giving detail on your problem.
Light microscopes are used to study living organism and to watch and analyze their structures. Electron microscopes use a dead specimen and are able to observe structures in great detail and with much much higher magnification. +++The electron microscope has a far higher definition and magnification than an optical microscope could achieve, but as you say you could not use it to study a living organism.