Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:26:53.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Past, Present and Future of Analytical Stems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

C. Colliex*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Building 510, and Laboratoire Aimé Cotton, Building 505 Université Paris Sud, 91405, Orsay(, France)
Get access

Abstract

Twenty five years ago, in august 1976, a specialist workshop gathered in Cornell University, at John Silcox's invitation, scientists covering a broad spectrum of interests to assess the potential of analytical electron microscopy, as to instrumentation, fundamental limits, general level of data processing and current theoretical understanding. If the STEM instrument had already been existing for a few years in Crewe's laboratory, its major emphasis, in spite of the existence of an EELS spectrometer, had focused on new modes of high resolution imaging. At the first Cornell workshop, the STEM instrument was for the first time recognized as a potentially formidable analytical instrument because of the possibility of extracting all available signals simultaneously. Furthermore it was directly suitable for digital computer processing and therefore for providing quantitative information. It was also pointed out that a major advantage of the STEM would be its potential to record EELS spectra from every point in the field of view as one scans an area to form an image, thus offering the capability of "chemical" mapping beyond "elemental" mapping.

Type
Quantitative STEM: Imaging and EELS Analysis Honoring the Contributions of John Silcox (Organized by P. Batson, C. Chen and D. Muller)
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Isaacson, M., Silcox, J., Ultramicroscopy 2 (1976) 89;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(2) Crewe, A.V.et al., Rev. Sci. Inst. 40 (1969) 241;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(3) Ultramicroscopy, 3 (1978) 339;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(4) Isaacson, M., Colliex, C., Ultramicroscopy 28 (1989) 363;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(5) Jeanguillaume, C., Colliex, C., Ultramicroscopy 28 (1989)252;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(6) Browning, N.D.et al., Nature 366 (1993) 143;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(7) Muller, D.A.et al., Nature 366 (1993) 725;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(8) Batson, P.E., Nature 366 (1993) 727;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(9) Ajayan, P.et al., Nature 375 (1995)564;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(10) Suenaga, K.et al., Science 278 (1997) 653;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(11) Suenaga, K.et al., Science 290 (2000) 2280;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(12) Isaacson, M., Johnson, D., Ultramicroscopy 1 (1975) 33;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(13) Krivanek, O.L.et al., Ultramicroscopy 78 (1999) 1;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(14) Mook, H., Kruit, P., Ultramicroscopy 78 (1999) 43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(15) Suenaga, K.et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 78 (2001) 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar