msoexpert

An experiment to teach kids why hand washing gets rid of germs is using either water or milk, glitter, and soap or hand sanitizer. When you touch the glitter in milk or water, the glitter spreads. So it simulates soap or sanitizer makes germs go away.

My question is whether this experiment would work if you were to use an industrial UV light, like what hospitals and others use to kill germs. FYI, I'm not remotely saying this will be done. But I'm curious whether you could visually show the same thing with shining an industrial UV light over the glitter.

Thanks!

If you have an item that's say 10x50, doesn't this mean that it's 10x magnification and a 50mm diameter aperture? But looking at various ads for monoculars and binoculars on places like eBay and Amazon, I'm finding many times, the numbers in the specs when you look at all the details aren't matching up to the product's description.

For instance, with one 40x60 monocular listing, it shows the aperture as 40mm. So wouldn't this mean it's actually a 40x40 monocular? In a listing for a similar item, the details say the objective lens is 50mm with a magnification of 40. So wouldn't this be a 40x50 monocular not a 40x60?

And with a 60x60 binocular, it says the magnification is 60 with an aperture of 40. So wouldn't this mean it's really a 60x40 binocular? There's another one that says it's 30x60.  So it appears that many, if not most of the listings I'm finding just don't seem to match up.Is this how they scam people? 

There are 2 phones. One has a SIM card with a major cellular provider. The other has no SIM card. With the SIM phone's hotspot and the non SIM phone connected to it, and wifi calling is enabled with the SIM phone, is it possible to make phone calls with the non SIM phone aside from 911? 

FYI, the non SIM is an android phone and the SIM is an iPhone.

Just for curiosity sake, if you were to just insert the eyepiece where the angled mirror would normally go, making it just one long tube rather than angled, would it still work and provide a clear image? Or must the angled mirror with the eyepiece  be used in order to see anything through the telescope? 

Both scopes are refractors. One has a 60mm lens diameter with a focal length of 900mm. The other one has a 70mm lens and a focal length of 400mm. The prices are pretty close to each other. And the eye pieces for both are 20mm, 12mm, and 6mm. So I'm not sure whether it's better to opt for the larger aperture and smaller focal length or the smaller lens and larger focal length. What are your thoughts as to which you feel is best?  

I have a pair of industrial UV light safety glasses that says it blocks UVA, UVB, and UVC rays. The specs don't say anything about blue light blocking. So I was wondering if these glasses would also be good for reducing the eye strain and protecting the retina like you'd have with blue light blocking glasses. My guess is these glasses would block the blue light, but I don't know for sure. So I'll ask those of you who know things much better than I. 

For example, you laid your phone on the bottom of the case. And then placed your face mask on top of it. If you were to put them side by side rather than stacking on on top of the other, would it make any difference?

I ask because you see some pictures of these units being sold where items are just next to one another. In other pictures, you'll see items covering or touching other items. With larger bags, there might be say a sweater on the bottom with a shirt on top of it, partially covering it. And other items, like jewelry, etc on top of these.

So would the UV rays penetrate through the items to disinfect what's underneath or on top? Or would the rays be blocked, even partially by having items stacked on each other? And thus, stacking items would defeat the purpose because the top or underside wouldn't be disinfected.

I'm curious why the the two UV lights appear to emit different colors and make things appear differently. One light has LEDs that emit violet colored light. The other is a glass tube that seems to emit white colored light.

Using a UV invisible ink pen, both UV lights will light up whatever is written or drawn. And if you just shined the violet colored light on yellow, it will appear brownish. With the white colored light, it will appear yellow. And with something coated with blue liquid laundry detergent, the violet colored light illuminates blue while the white colored light illuminates a faint white.

So I'm curious why these 2 UV lights would make things look so different when they're both supposed UVC with the same wavelength.  

With so many fakes being sold out there, does this experiment prove this particular one is at least UVC light? For the experiment, a piece of plain white paper and the lens off a big magnifying glass were used. The glass was placed partially over the paper. So one side of the paper was covered and the other was not. Then a UV light source was shined over the whole paper. So there was on both the covered and uncovered portions of the paper.

1) A child's UV invisible ink pen was used. The result was everything looking exactly the same on both sides of the paper. So the color and intensity were exactly the same!

2) A supposed UVC sterilizer wand was used. Here, the side covered by the magnifying glass was significantly dimmer. So there was a huge difference in the color between the covered and uncovered sides. And it appeared the covered side wasn't as bright. 

Here is a link with pictures so you can see for yourself what the results were: https://i.postimg.cc/SNLv4mf6/UV-light-test.jpg

Is there any difference in terms of protecting the eyes by wearing a pair of solar eclipse glasses and looking into a UV light vs wearing UV protection glasses? So are they basically the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Or is there a big difference? 

With a UVC light bulb or wand, looking directly at the source (the bulb or under side of the wand where the light comes out) is very dangerous to the eyes. But is it also that dangerous if you were to look at the light coming off it indirectly. In other words, looking at the light that's shining on a non-reflective surface? So when you look at the rays emitting out of the source from without looking directly at the source itself, is this as dangerous to one's eyes?

For example, pointing a light wand at something non-reflective and looking at the light hitting that object. Or having a bulb lighting up a room and looking inside the room at the light hitting the carpet or a wall.

There are a whole bunch of these handheld UVC germicidal wands being sold on Amazon, eBay, etc. Is there an inexpensive and simple way for consumers to test whether the light being emitted is really UVC and not UVA or UVB?

For example, if you had a Dosimeter test card that's used in industry, could you put it under the light wand and see whether it changes color? Or would the light output from the wands be too low for it to work?

But other than one of these test cards and an expensive UV light meter, is there something else the average consumer can do to tell if their light wand really does emit UVC light?

I know that hydrophobic sprays provide waterproofing and protection against other liquids. But my question is what, if any, is the difference between various products?

● Scotchguard fabric spray

● Thompson's Water Seal for fabrics

Are they really the same thing with just different brand names? Looking at the cans, they appear to be pretty much the same thing. However, the price differential between them is a few dollars. So I don't want to be penny-wise and pound foolish. Thanks everyone in advance for helping out!

The rubber suction cup with my dash cam keeps falling off because of the colder weather. And I just cannot get it to stick back on there.

I m finding conflicting information and hope you can reconcile. Some sources say to have the larger lens with higher magnification and the smaller eyepiece lens with lower magnification. Other sources say it s the reverse.

To provide a clearer and more detailed image, which is correct? Does it even matter? For example, a large 5X magnifying glass lens with say a 30x jewelers glass.

I have a mount with an eyepiece adapter to connect the monocular with my phone. The problem is with the moon being very bright against the dark skies. The moon appears just as a bright white spot. I've lowered the exposure, but that only makes everything even darker but still no clarity with details.  Daytime is no problem. Any advice would be helpful!

Both have 60 mm diameter and 6 mm eyepiece but:

1) 600 focal length. So magnification = 100x and f/stop = 10

2) 350 focal length for magnification of 60x. But the f/stop here is 6

My feeling is # 1 because the magnification is better. FYI, the price for each one is pretty close.

What is your feeling given one has better magnification but a lower f/stop?

I have a 2.4 inch diameter refractor telescope that s working just fine without the 1.5 extender. But when the extender is plugged in, the image upside-down.

FYI, I put the extender in between the tube and angled mirror at first. Then though I might have it setup wrong. So I put then put the extender in between the mirror and eyepiece. Same thing, the image is upside-down.

Without the extender, the image is right-side up. So my guess is the extender if faulty. Am I correct on this?

Second question. Where should the extender, a working on that is, actually go? Does it go before the mirror or in between the mirror and eyepiece?

Thanks everyone for your help!

If you were to attach a piece of PVC to the front of the telescope to create a wider opening, would that increase the light gathering capability of the scope?

So think of it an inverted lampshade covering a light bulb. Or a camera lens where the opening beyond the lens is split apart and widened to create the effect of a larger opening.

Secondly, would it affect the field of view?