Jump to content

Talk:Electron microscope

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Test moved from Microscope

[edit]

The following text was in the article Microscope but probably is better fitted here but I do not have the knowledge to ensure that it is well integrated. Apologies for the wholesale dump. Please feel free to delete from this discussion page folliowing any integration that may be appropriate. Velela 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the above comment, I've trimmed anything that doesn't involve electron beams, leaving in the related detection techniques - we're now getting down to something that might be worth merging in, if someone is going to do it coherently rather than as a text dump. DrMikeF 14:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electron beam

[edit]
File:Zeolite research 3DEM.jpg
A 3D-Electron microscopy/tomography showing a zeolite crystal in its atomic configuration. Courtesy of Utrecht University
see also:

Other / microanalysis

[edit]

]

Common Classifications

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  • Max Planck Research Group
  • Nanotube helium sensors could bring atom beam microscope
  • [F1]:"Phase-coherent amplification of atomic matter waves" (Nature 1999/12, S. INOUYE, T. PFAU, S. GUPTA, A. P. CHIKKATUR, A. GÖRLITZ, D. E. PRITCHARD & W. KETTERLE )
  • D.A. MacLaren, H. T. Goldrein, B. Holst and W. Allison, Phase-stepping optical profilometry of atom mirrors, J. Phys. D., 36, 1842-1849, 2003
  • D. A. MacLaren, B. Holst, D. Riley and W. Allison, Focusing elements and design considerations for a scanning helium microscope (SHeM), SurfaceReview and Letters, 10, 249-255, 2003
  • Why use a Stem and not a Tem?


[edit]

um there should be a few sentences explaining WHY (wavelength of light vs electrons etc) electron microscopes work better than light ones...and there should be a pro/con section comparing the two (EM can only view dead samples as requires a vacuum, only has monochrome images, etc.) my $0.02.

References to be improved

[edit]

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) Esem0 06:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Esem0 06:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of electron microscope

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I made a new version, but I didn't understand all the comments. What else needs done? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Quickly top to bottom: Label the high tension line 80,000 volts, not the gun itself. Add tungsten hairpin Filament outline, Cathode Cap and Anode. Label the section from Anode above "Electron Gun." Call the lenses Lenses, not coils. Coils does not need to be in parentheses. They are lenses. All lenses should be same size unless you elaborate to readers why C2 is so much smaller than C1. The two condenser lenses need separate labels because they are distinctly controlled in a TEM. The top one is Condenser Lens 1, the one below it is Condenser Lens 2. The apertures should be labeled what they are, "Condenser Aperture," "Objective Aperture," the Objective routinely changed in most TEM sessions, the Condenser changed for specific purposes. The intermediate lens (between objective lens and projector lenses) is missing. It and its Selected Area Diffraction Aperture need to be added. The assembly below the Condenser Aperture is, I guess, the Deflection Coils, and it should be labeled, and drawn distinctly from the lenses. The lenses should be inward facing square letter 'C's. See diagram at site on image talk page link and comment there. The specimen holder should be in a specimen exchanger, because you need a separate vacuum chamber unless you want to be venting and pumping down your entire column every time you put in a new specimen. There should be two projector lenses. They can be group labeled, no need to call them Projector Lens 1 and Projector Lens 2, which they are.

All coil and aperture openings and opening in bias shield and anode need to be precisely centered one above each other. Although the scope is made to look as if one is looking from the side, there is no purpose to drawing off-centered lenses and apertures in any microscope.

Also electron microscopes require stigmators due to the astigmatism in lenses is a primary limiting factor.

Do that and I will check a resource that can be referenced and fine tune it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.2.17 (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electron microscope#Disadvantages

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

FESEM and conductive coating

[edit]

“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).[reply]

Removed

Chivesud (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Materialscientist,

Actually you did support my opinion: you did not coat to improve contrast; you coat to improve conductivity of dielectric particles. So, I reverted article back to my version. Please, do not change it.

Chivesud (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto

[edit]

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)[reply]

Electron micrographs

[edit]

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)[reply]

Low voltage microscope

[edit]

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)[reply]

It was removed Chivesud (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I must make an objection to LVEM not being included on the TEM page. this is a unique technology that offers advantages only seen by TEM at 5kV.--Jared lap (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immunoelectron Microscopy

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/In Situ Electron Microscope

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ADF STEM imaging on aberration corrected HRTEM is not the base for TEM

[edit]

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)[reply]

Reversion of TEM to EM

[edit]

Please explain this reversion. Thanks. --99.185.241.13 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are no electrostatic lenses; the electron lenses are electromagnetic. Plantsurfer 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Not done: The key part of that source is at the end of the paragraph, which states "The first transmission EM constructed outside Germany was completed in 1935 or 1936 by Paul Anderson and Kenneth Fitzsimmons of Washington State University. In the same year, Gordon H. Scott at the Medical School of Washington University in St. Louis started an EM program.... Neither of these programs continued, however, and resolution did not exceed that of the light microscope." Following this was the first high-resolution EM constructed by Hall, Hillier and Prebus in 1938.  Spintendo  22:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision and Improvement

[edit]

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)

@Neurogeek: 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)
@Blue.painting: 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. ").[1] 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)[reply]
@Neurogeek: Thanks for the information and elaboration, I suppose the STM subsection can remain then :) Best --Blue.painting (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Nobel Prize in Physics 1986". NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB 2020. 15 October 1986. Retrieved 10 January 2020.

Split Article?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Natural science

[edit]

Voice 102.252.67.13 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natural sciences

[edit]

The history of the the discovery of the light and electron microscope 102.252.67.5 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wave-Particle Dispute

[edit]

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.[1] This was later confirmed by the Davisson–Germer experiment in 1927.[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Feynman, R., QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Penguin 1990 Edition, p. 84.
  2. ^ Davisson, C. J.; Germer, L. H. (1928). "Reflection of Electrons by a Crystal of Nickel". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 14 (4): 317–322. Bibcode:1928PNAS...14..317D. doi:10.1073/pnas.14.4.317. PMC 1085484. PMID 16587341.

Article issues and classification

[edit]
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; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4 The article is reasonably well-written. Reassesses article to C-class. -- Otr500 (talk)
[edit]
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: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. Trim per policies and guidelines. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full rewrite or deletion/redirection?

[edit]

Much of the content is old, not well written and not really relevant. By comparison the Transmission electron microscopy as well as the other electron microscopy pages (SEM, STEM, LEEM) are far better. I suggest removing 99% of page as there is nothing new. Just have it as links to the other existing pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you say, and I think that quite a lot of work is required to improve the quality of this page. However, I think it serves a useful purpose as an introductory overview and hub for linking to other more detailed pages, especially since they are so good, as you say. I think it's also a useful place to highlight EM workflows since that inevitably involves a discussion of multiple EM techniques, and that would not fit as well in the more detailed TEM, SEM, and other pages. I think that's one of the best ways to bring the page up to date since it represents much more how EM is used these days.
At the moment I've added some updates, citations, and other (hopefully) improvements. I've also added the EM workflows section, which hopefully exemplifies its utility.
In terms of other improvements, these are some of the ideas I think are worth considering;
- Moving sample prep to a separate page. Alternatively, making this section much more concise and linking through to equivalent subsections of other pages like TEM, SEM, etc., for detail. I can envision a broad overview that discusses the factors that need to be considered and how different sample prep approaches address them.
- Improving inline citations - thanks so much for adding all the 'citation needed' callouts; that was definitely needed. I've already added some to deal with this. I hope that my approach of adding a citation and then deleting the 'citation needed' callout is the appropriate convention. Please edit if you don't agree with what I've added.
- Deleting or editing subsections that are out of date, not appropriate, or covered better elsewhere. Again, they could be edited for brevity and/or to provide an overview, as for sample prep.
- Consider a revision of the page structure.
I have access to a large pool of expertise in the EMofCTO Slack Workspace, and I'm also happy to have a more interactive discussion there about this EM page (feel free to message me directly for more details). We've already had some useful discussions there as I've been making edits to the page. Putneybridgetube (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very glad to see this page improved, particularly the points you raise. I suggest first doing the citations and cleaning the sample prep sections. (Sample prep is not my strength.) With it cited and clean we can discuss bigger changes, also giving others (if they exist) a chance to comment so we don't get into an edit war later.
What is EMofCTO? I might join, but I am (like everyone) already overcommitted. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that sounds like a good approach, including where to start first.
EMofCTO stands for EM of Cells, Tissues, and Organisms. It's just a Slack group for discussing bio EM that I started over lockdown, although we now have about 750 members. Details at our Twitter site. You're welcome to join, but I definitely understand if you don't feel you can. Some of the members have contacts in the materials EM field, so we're trying to encourage them to join in with the work on improving this EM page as well
EMofCTO is also partnered with the Volume EM initiative, an advocacy group for bio EM using volume imaging workflows. The need for a Wikipedia page on vEM approaches is currently being discussed there. I'm volunteering for the vEM initiative in a fairly minor role, and I actually thought that the EM wikipedia page needed some work before we proposed a vEM page. That was one of my motivations for doing some editing here (trying to just describe things objectively, with a Neutral point of view), but I'm mainly trying to improve it because I'm interested and have some experience in EM generally. Putneybridgetube (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have no significant expertise in biological EM, just the other areas so I will leave the bio part to you. If you want info or a second opinion just ping me. I will check the page and may make tweaks once my jetlag from IMC20 is past. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before an edit war starts on bad sourcing

[edit]

@Wanzi 1 recently added some refs to Electron microscope at various locations where I had previously pointed out that they were needed. Unfortunately these were a complete hash, with for instance an 1899 paper cited to explain SEM imaging. I reverted them, pointing out that they were obviously wrong. Unfortunately @Plantsurfer reverted, I can only guess without checking the details and looking to see that the citations used were sensible.

Pinging some of the others I know have contributed a little in case we need concensus, @Graham Beards, FuzzyMagma, Eduard007, Putneybridgetube, and Niashervin: Ldm1954 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a problem with one of the citations which I dealt with, but some others look plausible. They are certainly not all wrong. If you think some can be replaced with better sources then suggest that, but you should discuss any issues with User:Wanzi 1, who contributed the citations.Plantsurfer 17:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look at some of the citations, particularly the biology-related ones and put them in better context or replace with higher quality ones. I do generally agree with @Ldm1954 that papers from the 19th century don't have a good place in giving a layperson explanation of modern methods. Given that EM history doesn't seem to be a section in this article, I don't see how such citations would be relevant here. Niashervin (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed the History section. In that case, those citations should stay, but don't need to be re-referenced in explaining how modern SEM works. Niashervin (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the ones which are wrong are
  • a polycrystalline powder.[1] (to Encyclopedia Britannica, not a standard text)
  • in serial rather than in parallel fashion.[2] (to historical background of electron optics)
  • See also freeze drying[6] (which references the first SAED)
  • ultramicrotomy and stained [7] (Leo Szilard as an inventor, and especially about his inventions with Albert Einstein.)
  • mirror-like finish using ultra-fine abrasives (to a paper on who invented EM)
Ldm1954 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., it is not that the references are not current, it is that they are random ones added for no good reason. In fact I am now leaning towards straight vandalism by @Wanzy 1, particularly as his edits on Amen appear similar. (3 edits total.) Sorry @Plantsurfer, but not a single one is close to feasible, you are not right on the technical details here. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no horse in this race - if you can justify the removal of all Wanzy 1's citations then please go ahead. Plantsurfer 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will let @Niashervin finish his edits, he knows what he is doing. He is better with bio than I am; I might tweak the source for ED later. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some edits, but this article clearly needs a lot of work. There's a strange mix where some sections are very surface-level and some go very in-depth. Niashervin (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about the work. I cant do the bio areas. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and removed the rest of the vandalizing references added by @Wanzy 1 Ldm1954 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electron_microscope&oldid=1234508106"