🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Oct19.102111.17191@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes:
>>I am considering buying a microscope for my 10 year old daughter. I like to get
>>a good quality (i.e. not a toy) yet not too expensive one (say, under ~$250).  
>
>I would strongly recommend getting a dissecting microscope, with good
>...
>Dissecting microscopes are lowish power, say 5X to 50X, allow
>examination of everyday articles, and plant and animal life, such as
>flowers and pond water, without the need for any special preparation.
>They allow stereo viewing, which means that things like mould on
>bread, or the surface of textiles, look spectacular.

I second this suggestion.  Stay with low power.  All the non-industrial
microscopes I've seen (1960's vintage Gilbert brand) have tremendous 
light-loss at higher magnifications that render these settings pretty 
useless.  As a kid, I was MUCH MUCH happier with my 60-100-150-400 power 
scope than I was with a second 100-400-750-1000X scope.  I primarily used 
the 60X setting, and frequently wished I had a few *lower* magnifications, 
not higher.
I also second the stereo scope idea.  If you can afford one, a stereo
scope is vastly superior to a mono scope for the type stuff kids
and hobbyists look at.  Seeing 3-D is truly *incredible* through a
stereo scope.  We have an industrial stereo scope here at work, and I 
bring in mineral specimens to look at once in a while, and my friends
are awestruck when they take a peek.

If anybody knows a source of inexpensive stereo scopes, let me know,
I'm looking!

---
Rick Inzero				        rochester!cci632!rdi
Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI)			uunet!ccicpg!cci632!rdi
Rochester, NY					uunet!rlgvax!cci632!rdi


"Your grandmother never, ever called me stupid.  
	She always called me 'pinhead'." -Jimmy Stewart in 1988 Campbells Soup
								commercial.