Pick one Neureobiology topic from list Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Pick one Neureobiology topic from list - Essay Example These are the simplest and oldest microscopes which use light along with powerful lenses to focus on a living or a dead specimen placed onto a platform called the stage (refer to the picture above). The specimen (also called sample) is viewed using the eye piece. Before we move onto electron microscopy we must understand what exactly is meant by the term resolution. Resolution is a measure of how detailed an image is. A picture with a great resolution is very clear. The problem with light microscopy is that the image (called micrograph) formed using a light microscope has a lower resolution i.e. it is less clear even at the highest magnification. Now the question is why resolution matters. It matters because the clarity of an image matters when viewing cells that have very small parts if the resolution is low then two small parts can end up appearing as one single small part. Light microscopes have a limit of resolution of 200nm that is if any two objects are viewed using a light microscope and are closer than 200nm to each other than they cannot be viewed as separate objects and instead they get merged into a single object. The major difference between a light and an electron microscope is of resolution. Electron microscopes have a much greater resolution than light microscopes and as a result the image (micrograph) obtained using an electron microscope is much clearer. These use a beam of electrons (very small negatively charged particles that are found in all substances) instead of light to examine the specimen. Electron microscopes were made in order to overcome the limitations of the light microscope. Electron microscopes provide much larger magnification and much clearer images of specimen being viewed. There are two types of electron microscopes: 1. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) designed after reflective light microscopes these are also using electrons beams but here the beam is used for scanning the surface or the boundary of

Brief #5 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Brief #5 - Assignment Example According to the court, "[T]he prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material†. While accessing the privilege under Fourteenth Amendment, the court also judged the withdrawal of petitioner’s blood against â€Å"the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty†¦.for such silence†. The petitioner was driving with his companion and because of being intoxicated, he struck a tree due to which, he and his companion got injured. While having being treated for the injuries at the hospital, he was arrested on account of intoxication while driving. His blood sample for the test of intoxication was extracted against his will with the help of a physician because the officer found him drunk. The search and seizure was not unreasonable. The petitioner was informed about his right to get an attorney’s counsel, but blood sample was taken against his will. According to the petitioner, his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment were violated due to which, the evidence of his blood sample should be rejected. However, the Appellate Department of California Superior court affirmed the conviction and rejected his contentions. According to the court, there is no ‘compelling communication’ or ‘testimony ’ that violate the petitioner’s rights and any compulsion with the support of which, ‘real or physical evidence’ is obtained about a suspect, is not a violation of privileges. The cases applicable here are Malloy v. Hogan, Holt v. United States (1910) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The Los Angeles Municipal Court of the Criminal offense decided that Schmerber was guilty of intoxicated driving