Talk:Environmental scanning electron microscope

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

I hope this new article will pave the way for further improvement of wikipedia in the category of electron microscopy. Esem0 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first Advantages link, links back to the homepage, was is supposed to lead to wiki-advantages or the section advantage son the same page? 193.170.20.110 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links fixed Esem0 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Links Requested

Can someone make 'Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy' and 'Environmental SEM' redirect here? I would do it but I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.110.66 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Esem0 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages vs. Disadvantages

Wikipedia articles usually balance an advantages section with a disadvantages section whenever possible. Thus I made a short list of potential downsides to ESEM someone ignorant of the subject (i.e., myself) might wonder:

What disadvantages are there to using a gas medium? For instance, could this potentially damage a specimen, i.e. a microprocessor? If so, can this problem be resolved or is a standard SEM necessary?
What effect does the gas medium have on external electromagnetic fields disturbing the measurement process?
What about the depth of field of the image vs. other electron microscopes?
What about the international market price and availability vs. other electron microscopes?
What about portability?
What about level of skill required to operate?

While I'm sure that some of these questions were already answered in the article to varying degrees, it would be useful to have a concise list of disadvantages so an "average" reader like myself can put ESEM into a better perspective. Anyone wanting to modify and/or add to my list is more than welcome to do so.

--BBUCommander (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concisely addressed Esem0 (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESEM Video

Does anyone have access to video of a TV rate ESEM scan for inclusion in this article? The droplets of water onto a tissue in the image gallery is a good example using still shots, but a video would be much more illustrative of the overall effect.

--BBUCommander (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, even at a slower rate, there are plenty of video recordings around from the commercial ESEM, should the old prototype TV scan rate recordings be not available any longer... Esem0 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External link for video recordings of live specimens and other in situ imaging in ESEM has now been provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes vs. References and formating

@materialscientist: The formatting done seems to have inadvertently achieved an undesired result, since the "Foundations..." reference does not connect with current #12, #25 and #26 under "Notes", whilst under "References" it is not connected to anything. You may prefer to revert and then re-do to achieve your aim, bearing in mind that this particular big reference is quoted first as a whole in the "History" and then as "pages" elsewhere (to help the reader find the relevant material). It is cross-referenced several times. In all related articles the "References" are what it was prior your last formatting. You probably meant to achieve something else. Your contributions are very much appreciated. Esem0 (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that earlier, but didn't know what to do (i) There were two name="found" references in the previous version. If you wish to refer to the whole book, just put <ref>Danilatos</ref> without page numbers. If you wish to link it electronically, Harvard system will do that (I am just too lazy to set it up - there is a convention that if one meets Danilatos, pp. 14-20 then one has to look a section down for some book of Danilatos, which is there. Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an interim action until what you said can be done I will revert plus restore your other minor formatting. This will at least provide the correct information if not the desired formatting. Esem0 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, as I had entered the comment above but did not "save". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all the editing re formatting of reference material. I will try (later) and use it to also reflect content, namely, reference to the whole versus part of the reference. Please note that I am not a very fast or highly skilled editor, and I could hardly keep up with your lightning speed. One thing remains unclear to me: Why the "references" are entered under "notes"? This does not appear to be the case in other articles. BTW, the "FOUNDATIONS..." is not a book by itself but a big chapter in that series of volumes (or books). Please clarify the situation especially that of Notes vs. References. Esem0 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help with formatting (got to run now). Yes, "References" when stand-alone section and "References" and "Bibliography" for double (Harvard) citation. "Notes" are for comments. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have adapted the referenced content to the new formatting. For the one only (first) instance of referencing the whole paper, I have included it in the references list in the usual way which duplicates the Bibliography reference - is this ok? Thanks again for the help. I will try another time and use the Harvard system to narrow down on references inside another "big" reference (the "theory of the gaseous detection device"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, please don't worry, I brush up formatting spontaneously and consider that a typing exercise - I was actually going to make time and read the article (I am electron microscopist myself, but not of ESEM :-). It is acceptable to cite the source once in "References" even if it goes to "Bibliography". The purpose of those double sections is to avoid repeating the full reference several times. Three references to one book is a borderline case, but when it growth to a dozen, Harvard style really helps to tidy refs. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to the article is much more than "minor". It feels good to have some people like you around to help. I had not realised that references from the reference list directly linked to personal or private urls are ok (in this case, I see it is to the paper itself, so it must be ok). Those page-by-page urls also provide the opportunity for anyone to refer to a particular page of any paper. Your editing is fine by me. Esem0 (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applications

Proposal: This section of the article needs the inclusion of some representative applications from the use of a large number of commercial ESEM instruments in the field. A small number of early works will be mentioned to open the way for even better contributions, replacements or expansions. New editors are encouraged to enrich this section by also uploading their own best images. However, the volume of contributions should be limited to a balanced proportion in the article and should be amended over time to retain only the best representative material. Esem0 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rating of this article

Can somebody please explain how the ratings of this article are obtained?Esem0 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]