Talk:Electron microscope

message: Manfred von Ardenne is considered to be the father of scanning electron microscope and is a contemporary contributor to transmission microscopy along with Ernst Ruska.  Among his numerous works are:
Manfred von Ardenne (1938).  Das Elektronen-Rastermikroskop. Theoretishce Grundlagen. Zeitschrift fur Physik. 108, 553-572.
Manfred von Ardenne (1938).  Das Elektronen-Rastermikroskop. Praktische Ausfurung. Z. Techn. Phys. 108, 407-416.
M von Ardenne and D Beischer.  Untersuchung von metalloxud-rauchen mit dem universal-elektronenmikroskop . Zeitschrift  Electrochemie 46, 270-277 (1940).''
Manfred von Ardenne is one of the most prolific authors with publications in various fields of science throughout his life.
Esem0 06:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to be improved 

message: The image could be cleaned up and used, but as it now stands it does not illustrate an electron microscope due to artifacts of the drawing.  For example, the lenses are closed off from the beam entering, the objective lens is also blocking the path of the primary beam through the scope, there are unidentified structures in the scope.  Please read the comments on the image talk page before restoring this to the article, as it downgrades the quality of the article with its incorrect illustration of an "electron microscope."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.177.227 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, of course you are right. The article needed a diagram, and this was the best I could do. I knew there were problems with it, but it was meant to be a sketch - not specification! I tried to fix it, but PowerPoint, or I, are not up to the job. (I could align a real microscope quicker). So guys, here's the challenge, produce or find (or edit) a better free image that we can use in the article. Free images, like this bad one, can be edited just as articles. Which reminds me; why doesn't the anonymous user who wrote that excellent criticism on the image talkpage have a go at improving the article? (No sarcasm intended). --GrahamColmTalk 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to rewrite the article and the other EM articles when the term is over.  The article needs work that should be done with references for readers to confirm the accuracy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.177.227 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram of electron microscope 

message: Electron microscope#Disadvantages states "They are dynamic rather than static in their operation..".  What is this intended to mean? Having worked with electron microscopes all my working life, dynamism isn't one of the characteristics I would attribute to them.Plantsurfer (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @Plantsurfer Yes, a significant disadvantage of electron microscopy is that EM cannot be used to observe living things while they are still alive.  An external reference for this limitation of EM is e.g. BBC article on Cell Structure
IMO, the whole "disadvantages" section needs revision.  For instance, this section should not begin by comparing the cost of maintaining electron microscopes generally ("overlaps with those of basic electron microscopes") to the cost of maintaining a specific type of electron microscope ("the capital and running costs of confocal light microscope systems").  I'm annoyed that my little edit was reverted, but I agree that it didn't have a 3rd party reference.  --Neurogeek (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Electron microscope#Disadvantages]] 

message: “Another reason for coating, even when there is more than enough conductivity, is to improve contrast, a situation more common with the operation of an FESEM (field emission SEM)” – I wish to remove this phrase. FESEM are good to work without any coating at all. Unless somebody convince me I am wrong, I will remove it. I work with FESEM and I am surprised to see this statement.
Chivesud (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also do not coat my samples (too lazy :-), and it is often faster to find a "better" sample area than to coat), but I saw many cases where coating did help a lot. I also use FESEMs, but find it is more a matter of sample, not FE gun (i.e. it's higher electron density is a minor factor compared to the sample properties). For example, I often see dielectic particles moving under the beam due to charging, and coating does help against that. To sum up, I find the statement correct - the effect is just not always annoying enough :-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FESEM and conductive coating 

message: The article under HISTORY that I placed a link to, several years ago, is now a dead link.  The U of T in their infinite wisdom, has messed things up.  And I with much difficulty have found the same article written by my uncle John H L Watson, still available on the U of T website, but under the name H L Watson.  I will tell them his name was John, and that his family called him Jack. John H L Watson:  his father was John H L Watson also, and was born in Huntingdon, England in 1891.  He came to Canada in 1910.   He was a barber.  His first son, Jack (the physicist) excelled at math and physics, and went on to make an improved electron microscope for his doctoral thesis in (circa) 1943.  My uncle Jack was also an excellent baritone singer, and founded the Windsor (Ontario) Light Opera Association, and directed, produced and performed in it until 1988 , whilst working in medical research as Head of Physics at the Edsel B Ford Institute for Medical Research at the Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan.  
I will alter the link under the history section, and hope that it will direct readers to the same article as before, even tho the U of T does not seem to know my uncle's first name.  What a great university... Not!
----------------
Someone who loves Wikipedia can tidy up my link. Thank you. I don;t know how to add the big dot called a bullet.  Have fun!
208.72.123.23 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Toronto 

message: The statement in the lead "Electron microscopes use electron micrographs, using an attached camera to photograph the monitor display." is inaccurate.
It has never been true of transmission electron microscopes, early examples of which exposed photographic glass plates or film directly
to the electron image, and was only true of scanning electron microscopes up to about the early 1990s. Modern SEMs capture a digital image directly from 
the electronic signal using an analogue/digital convertor and frame store.   Modern TEMs capture digital images using specialised digital camera systems. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electron micrographs 

message: I suggest (VERY STRONGLY) to remove paragraph “Low voltage electron microscope”. It is nothing more than ADVERTISEMENT FROM DELONG AMERICA of their tabletop instrument.
There is no new modes of electron microscopy, nothing that cannot be achieved with other instruments, whether TEM/STEM or SEM with transmitted electrons detector. Tabletop electron microscopes are low voltage instruments not by choice but by necessity. Only low voltage operation permits fabrication of small electron columns suited for tabletop instruments. Tabletop microscopes have major drawbacks which are tolerated due to their low cost. 
Moreover, this paragraph may introduce some confusion: now low voltage operation is a near standard mode for new SEMs.
I will remove the paragraph in a week or two if now objections will arise. 
Chivesud (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low voltage microscope 

message: What is it?  Google gives 307,000 hits for that term, but it doesn't appear in the article.CountMacula (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunoelectron Microscopy 

message: Is this actually a new type microscope or a new technique worthy of a stand-alone article? Is there any content here that would be useful for this article?
:It is a technique that is encyclopedic. The proposed article is hard to read. An article should be called In situ electron microscopy and deal with SEM, TEM, STEM, LEEM, and so on as the technique, history of development and applications.MicroPaLeo (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some work on the submission and have added it to the encyclopedia (In situ electron microscopy). Any help improving and further integrating this would be appreciated. ~KvnG 21:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I am glad to help out. I do not edit much but am capable in this area. A little clean-up of my citations would be useful. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/In Situ Electron Microscope]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electron microscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201175106/http://www.sc.doe.gov:80/bes/scale_of_things.html to http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/scale_of_things.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529185331/http://ncem.lbl.gov/frames/spleem.html to http://ncem.lbl.gov/frames/spleem.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article and the TEM article both use HRTEM imaging mode references to discuss TEM imaging. As there is an HRTEM article on Wikipedia, why is the conventional TEM information all about HRTEM? They are not the same, you know. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:5D (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADF STEM imaging on aberration corrected HRTEM is not the base for TEM  

message: Please explain this reversion. Thanks. --99.185.241.13 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Electron lenses are only used to form the image in transmission electron microscopes used in transmission mode. Scanning electron microscopes and transmission microscopes used in scanning transmission mode (STEM) use the lenses only as condensers for beam forming, and the image is not formed (electron) optically but by a rastering process. Plantsurfer 10:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the "form an image" part. I glossed over the ending. (A while ago I had been told there were no elecrostatic lenses in electron microscopes, so I assumed it was this again.) Thanks. --2601:648:8503:4467:8EE:48D4:D702:5880 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no electrostatic lenses; the electron lenses are electromagnetic. Plantsurfer 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, parts of the gun assembly act as an electrostatic lens in electron microscopes. But, as I did before, I just sourced it in the article to a reliable source. Truthfully, I've learned reliable sources is a variably enforced policy on Wikipedia, particularly when editors have outside knowledge they would prefer not to look up since what they know is contradicted by the sources. All of the microscope articles on Wikipedia are full of random information, unsourced, inaccurate, on the wrong topic, supported by editors determined that it stay in the article, so, I'll just source. As typical, feel free to revert my reliably sourced information and add sources that don't contain the info, though. --2601:648:8503:4467:8EE:48D4:D702:5880 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of TEM to EM  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electron microscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215144944/http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d8452.htm to http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d8452.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719130538/http://www.rms.org.uk/em.shtml to http://www.rms.org.uk/em.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the third graf under the History section, please change: 
The first North American electron microscope was constructed in 1938, at the University of Toronto, by Eli Franklin Burton and students Cecil Hall, James Hillier, and Albert Prebus. 
to 
The first North American electron microscope was constructed in 1935 or 1936, at Washington State University, by Paul Anderson and Kenneth Fitzsimmons. Three years later in 1938, Eli Franklin Burton and students Cecil Hall, James Hillier and Albert Prebus of the University of Toronto built North America's first high-resolution electron microscope. 
Because
Sources show North America's first electron microscope was constructed at Washington State University. 
https://www.microscopy.org/about/history.cfm Wferguson1987 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The key part of that source is at the end of the paragraph, which states  Following this was the first high-resolution EM constructed by Hall, Hillier and Prebus in 1938.  Spintendo  22:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018 

message: A thorough rewrite of this article seems both necessary and difficult.  I'm interested in refreshing my knowledge of the subject, and have plenty of time on my hands.
Is anyone else working on editing this page?
--Neurogeek (talk) 13: 48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
:  Sounds great. I am not actively working on editing it but I added STM as one of the subheadings for type of electron microscope. But I'm not 100% sure if actually STM falls under electron microscopy. Maybe you could confirm whether this is the case or not? Best, Blue. painting (talk) 13: 54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
::  The 1986 Nobel Prize announcement contrasted the scanning tunneling microscope(STM) with the electron microscope ("is not a true microscope (i.e. an instrument that gives a direct image of an object)"), but further clarified that the distinction is one of technique but not subject ("... the scanning tunneling microscope. Its principle differs completely from that of other microscopes. "). Because it is used to study structure of objects at the micro/atomic scale, the STM can be considered a type of microscope.  Because it in part uses movement of electrons, it can also be considered within the group of electron microscopes. --Neurogeek (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks for the information and elaboration, I suppose the STM subsection can remain then :) Best --Blue.painting (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision and Improvement 

message: The main article is now over 50,000 bytes, and is very long, so could potentially be considered for splitting off sub-articles. Particularly, I think that the very long list of "Sample Preparation" techniques (with 15 separate techniques all needing explanation) would be a good candidate for having its own article. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Article? 

message: Voice 102.252.67.13 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural science 

message: The history of the the discovery of the light and electron microscope 102.252.67.5 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural sciences 

message: There is a dispute between myself and the editor 37.134.90.176 (talk) over 
including the following paragraph
  In 1925, physicist Louis de Broglie asserted that moderately accelerated electrons must show an associated wave, and calculated its wavelength, which would be in the order of the X rays in the electromagnetic spectrum.Feynman, R., QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Penguin 1990 Edition, p. 84. This was later confirmed by the Davisson–Germer experiment in 1927. All they provided the theoretical principles that make the electron microscope possible.
	
I have deleted this paragraph  twice (and it has been reverted twice by the original editor) because I believe it is not sufficiently relevant to an encyclopedic article on an electron microscope. Would a third party comment on relevance and suitability of this paragraph being incorporated and delete it if appropriate.
NeedsGlasses (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and it is known that when Knoll & Ruska developed the first TEM they knew nothing about the wave nature. Indeed that section "Theoretical foundations" has no relevance to the article, so I am deleting it. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave-Particle Dispute 

message: :The article is tagged as having "unsourced statements from July 2008", April 2017, September 2018, and as "needing clarification from September 2018. The B-class criteria #1 states; , and #4  Reassesses article to C-class. --  Otr500 (talk)
===External links===
::There are sixteen entries in the "External links" with three subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . Trim per policies and guidelines. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues and classification

message: ::There are sixteen entries in the "External links" with three subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . Trim per policies and guidelines. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: External links