Talk:Electron microscope/Archive 1

Harold Hillman
The heretic Harold Hillman claims that electron microscopy on cell material is a big methodological mistake. Frank A

Heretic? This is science, not religion. Hillman's claims don't explain why differing techniques should produce such similar results. He's not a heretic, just wrong. Average Earthman 16:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tunneling microscope as Electron microscope
Should this page not include the Scanning Tunneling Microscope under types as well? It is after all using electrons to image.

I've heard of scanning tunneling electron microscopes before. what are they? - Omegatron 01:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Better known as the Scanning tunneling microscope. In microscope, the acronym STEM usually refers to the Scanning transmission electron microscope. Average Earthman 10:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shorter wavelengths do not help with magnification, as this article states. They help with resolving power.


 * Against: When I think electron microscope, I see an electron gun or some sort of electron beam as an analog to optical microscopes... Tunneling microscopes are a different beast entirely, because the electrons are extracted form the sample. I used to work with an STM, but now I do biology. An STM would rip a biological sample apart, but electron microscopes are very popular.
 * I say we should remove the bulk tunneling microscopes info and only make a refence to them. Either way we don't need 4 paragraphs, when there is feature page. --vossman 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree.

I'm certainly NOT an expert here. My content comes directly from the Nobelprze.org website. If they have it wrong, please fix it. IMHO something needs to be said about the STM as a type of electron microsope, perhaps, as suggested below fewer paragraphs, with a link to its own page. frankatca 13 Nov. 2005 comment moved from top of page to chronological position

Comment by "Graham Cliff"
I am an expert in AEM. The application of x-ray microanalysis in TEM and STEM. I take note of the absence of any discussion of SAD, and would add a need for CBED! This page, although very good, is incomplete. Perhaps it needs expansion? Graham Cliff. comment by 80.47.216.185, 20 August 2006

Merge of selected area diffraction
It's a technique specific to transmission electron microscopy, and therefore any merging should be with Transmission electron microscopy. Average Earthman 13:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I second Average Earthman's vote - SA diffraction belongs in the TEM article. MarcoTolo 03:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, but I rather expanded the SAD article to make this a more useful discussion. Please edit the SAD article, in case I missed something or defiled the English language. Cm the p 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the microscope page should talk about a microscope and technique should get allocated to separate pages. Especially now that Cm the p has expanded the article. --vossman 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I should say I wasn't actually voting *for* a merge, merely stating where the merge should be if one was carried out. Average Earthman 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could consider if the SAD article should be merged with the electron diffraction article instead... O. Prytz 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Surely any merge should occur in the other direction. SAD is simply something which relates to electron microscopes...mpearse 09:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the suggestion that that selected area diffraction be merged with this article, and suggest instead that it be merged with Transmission electron microscopy. See the SAD talk page. O. Prytz 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the electron microscope parts should be lised anywhere?
If they should should it be in a new article or an addition to this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.32.2.1 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TEM vs SEM
Transmission and scanning microscopes are quite different in construction and use. I'm going to try moving content off of this page to the subsidary pages where it is specific to each type of microscope. (I've been out of the industry for a while, so any corrections and help would be appreciated.) --IanOsgood 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wavelength and Frequency of Electrons
Does anyone know what wavelengths the electrons used in TEM microsopes are, and how their resolution compares to light such as gamma rays? 90.200.150.73 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wavelengths for TEM electrons, with energies between 100keV and 300keV, are only a few picometers in size. Hence the angles for Bragg diffraction are much smaller than those for X-ray diffraction, since characteristic X-rays have wavelengths much closer to the separation between atoms (around 0.2 nanometers).  Of course gamma rays of comparable wavelength interact very weakly with matter, while the high electrostatic charge to mass ratio of electrons causes them to interact rather strongly.  Thermochap (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Types
What about thermo scientific electron microscopy, am i missing it, is it called something else or is it not included? or is that just longhand for an electron microscope? --69.230.211.183 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it. The term is not in use. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thermo scientific is a company that sells equipment, not a type of equipment. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RCA involvement
In the early 1940s, RCA was running advertisements in all the trades talking about their electron microscopes and seem to be claiming some sort of connection to the development of the technology. The RCA article makes similar claims, albeit only in passing. Any independent evidence? 121a0012 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Electrons vs electro-magnetic radiation
Recent edits have introduced fundamental errors into this article. I think it started here, when an editor changed "They have a much greater resolving power than light microscopes that use electromagnetic radiation" to "The microscope has a greater angular resolution power (magnification) than a a light-powered optical microscope, because it uses electromagnetic radiation" (my emphasis). Or something like this—I don't have the page open.

Electomagnetic radiation is light, that is photons. Electron microscopes do not use photons, this is why they are called electron microscopes. Because of their tiny size, electrons have a wave-particle duality, as explained by quantum theory. When accelerated into beams produced by very high voltages, they behave like waves with an extremely short wave-length, about 100,000 times shorter than visible light, thus high resolutions and great magnifications are possible.

I have hopefully repaired the Lead but I can see the article requires much work, and I applaud all efforts, but please be careful not to introduce embarrassing errors. School kids everywhere will be plagiarising this article for their homework, so we owe it to them to get it right :-) Graham Colm  Talk 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic radiation
I think the introduction paragraph is wrong in saying that the electron microscope uses an electromagnetic radiation. The wave - particle duality principle applied to a beam of fast electron allows us to calculate an equivalent electron wavelength but this is the first time that I have heard an electron beam being equivalent to electromagnetic radiation such as visible light. DivakarR 08:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. I fixed it. --Heron 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it still says that electron microscopes use photons ("electromagnetic radiation"), and this is a huge mistake. VChivesud

History
The electron microscope was invented and patented by Hungarian physicist Leó Szilárd who declined to construct it

The "source" for this claim is a talk given by Gene Dannen that does not contain any references. Also, Dannen did NOT specifically claim that Szilard obtained a (Hungarian) patent for an electron microscope, and even if this claim is correct then it should say Szilard "conceived" rather than "invented" it, as he did not actually build one.

Unless someone can provide a VERIFIABLE source for this claim I'm going to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington50 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)