Undergrad Why is the resolution of TEMs and SEMs not smaller?

Click For Summary
The practical resolutions of Transmission Electron Microscopes (TEMs) and Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEMs) are significantly lower than those predicted by the Rayleigh Criterion due to factors such as spherical aberration and astigmatism in magnetic lenses. Calculations indicate that the electron wavelengths for TEM and SEM are much smaller than the observed resolutions of 0.5 angstrom and 50-100 nm, respectively. The numerical aperture of the objective lens also plays a critical role in limiting resolution. Recent advancements in aberration correction technology have shown promise in improving these limitations. Understanding these factors is essential for enhancing the performance of electron microscopy techniques.
ccrook
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I was wondering if someone could offer an explanation as to why TEMs and SEMs have practical resolutions several orders of magnitude less than what is predicted by the Rayleigh Criterion. This of course comes from my own calculations of the Rayleigh Criterion assuming an electron is accelerated by 300kV and 10 kV field respectively and correcting for relativity in the electron's speed. In the TEM case, I found the electron wavelength to be approximately 2e-12 m and the SEM 1.2e-11 m, which are much smaller than 0.5 angstrom and 50-100 nm observed. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps page 10 here ? Abbe's equation ##\ d = 0.61 \lambda/{\rm NA}\ ##. The numerical aperture of the objective comes in too.
 
ccrook said:
I was wondering if someone could offer an explanation as to why TEMs and SEMs have practical resolutions several orders of magnitude less than what is predicted by the Rayleigh Criterion. This of course comes from my own calculations of the Rayleigh Criterion assuming an electron is accelerated by 300kV and 10 kV field respectively and correcting for relativity in the electron's speed. In the TEM case, I found the electron wavelength to be approximately 2e-12 m and the SEM 1.2e-11 m, which are much smaller than 0.5 angstrom and 50-100 nm observed. Thank you!

One reason is that the magnetic lenses used suffer from large amounts of spherical aberration and astigmatism. There has been some good progress:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1903/3637
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Electron_Aberration-Corrected_Microscope
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K