Talk:Aberration-Corrected Transmission Electron Microscopy

TEAM 0.5 facility

@Ldm1954, as far as I know, TEAM 0.5 has only ever been at NCEM at LBNL. The old website also seems to confirm that. Is there some source saying that TEAM 0.5 was originally housed at ANL? Niashervin (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the ACAT at ANL was called TEAM 0.5, but I guess it is a different instrument. The ACAT was perhaps even earlier than 0.5/ Ldm1954 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ACAT at the ANL was a part of the TEAM project to explore the chromatic aberration correction on the conventional TEM side of the final instrument. Another part of the TEAM project was the prototype DCOR and prototype X-FEG for STEM at the ORNL. The TEAM 0.5 at NCEM does not have chromatic aberration correction but a monochromator. 81.89.202.227 (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contraversial deletes

@JoachimKippenberg, please do not just delete paragraphs or make edits that reflect your personal opinions. Wikipedia works as a concensus of editors and experts. If you feel that a section is not relevant then you must post to the relevant talk page (e.g. here) and seek agreement from others. I realize that as a new editor it takes time to understand how Wikipedia works. I have reverted your edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the rudeness, it was not intended.

As to the content: The paragraph about Albert Crewe does not even mention that he worked on aberration correction at all but introduced cold field emission sources and improved image resolution (without aberration correction). That he made atoms visible is nice, but also there, he was not the first, see Erwin Müller. Also, it is very difficult to understand for the layman that this is of absolutely no relevance for the topic of aberration correction, since he by far did not resolve the single atoms, he just detected them. Millikan did something very similar with his oil droplets long before.

Acknowledging that Albert Crewe worked on aberration correction, he is only one of many and in no respect the first or the one with the most advancement. The theory is founded by Scherzer, the experimental proof of concept came from the Möllenstedt group already in 1952. Then, there were continuous efforts in many places in the world where Crewe was just as unsuccesful as all others in improving the image resolution compared to the uncorrected case.

So, why does Crewe deserve the only and single mention out of the whole community for the prototyping era and have more space for it than even the successful people? And even there, in my view, it would be much more relevant to mention the first successful implementation of aberration correction in electron microscopy, even if it was not in (S)TEM but "only" in SEM, by Zach in 1995.

Thus, either the whole paragraph about the prototyping era needs to be extended very much or the Crewe part deleted to not being very unjust to all the others. JoachimKippenberg (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with you that he should not be the only person, and much more needs to be added in many parts of this page. It was mainly written by @Niashervin with a little assistance from me; I confess that I probably should have done a bit more work on it, my only excuse is that I had/have too much else to do. It was started because until it existed all pages on AC-EM linked to the TEAM project, which was not appropriate.

Rather than deleting, it would be very helpful if you added material. If needed draft it first in a Sandbox and mention the suggested changes on this talk page first for feedback -- this generally avoids "why was that done?" reactions by people. In fact many of the (S)(T)EM pages badly need work. I occaisionally chip away at bits, but more people helping would be very useful. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would be good to have a balanced abstract about the efforts leading to success. Wouldn't it even be better to concisely state that numerous groups around the world tried for nearly half a century to finally succeed? With the starting point of the theory by Scherzer and the experimental proof of principle shortly after? In the end it is a Wikipedia article for anybody vaguely interested in the technique. Adding the whole detailed story of who failed where and when for half a century is interesting for me personally, but not for someone who consults Wikipedia about the general technique. In either way, leaving the Crewe paragraph as is and waiting for the time that somebody adds the whole history is the worst thing to do now. Instead, I plead for deletion nevertheless.

Also, why did you revert the small changes in the entrance paragraph? That aberration correction could not be implemented is strictly speaking not true, since improving resolving power and correcting for aberrations are two different things. The last sentence of the first paragraph is wrong in two respects: First, the chromatic aberration is an optical aberration; so probably, geometrical aberration instead of optical aberration was meant. Second, calling chromatic aberration correction a standard in many commercial electron microscopes is a plain lie. Including the ACAT that is shut down by now, there are 5 (five) chromatic aberration correctors for TEM in the world (ACAT, TEAM, PICO, SALVE, Krios in Bejing), all slightly different prototypes (OK, one very different) and 1 (one) for STEM (STEHM). Each of them was a very dedicated special effort (and extremely expensive) and it is not clear still today if the benefit is worthwile the investment. In the TEAM project, it was clear from the beginning that implementing Cc correction was _only_ beneficial for the initially planned large pole piece gap that has been cancelled during the project. Afterwards, the now nonsense Cc correction remained in the project because they wanted it for the sake of itself. JoachimKippenberg (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum: By the way, I do see a lot of changes in the edit history, but no discussion in the talk page about any of them. How does this work? JoachimKippenberg (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole article somebody's personal opinion from the beginning? What does consensus of editors and experts mean in the world of Wikipedia? Am I an editor if I contribute (even through deleting)? Am I an expert on the topic I choose to contribute? Who is and why?

Honestly, I did not mean to be rude but I need some update on the workings of Wikipedia: I thought, any article can be written by anybody and stands there for itself to be used or improved by anybody else. Of course, there should be manners but if the workings are as described above, then it is equally rude just to revert changes without considering the explanation given in the history log and maybe discuss the issue before reverting everything. JoachimKippenberg (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is more definitely false data in the article to delete, nothing to replace in these cases. Can't I just go on and justify in the cangelog? If it is erroneous, a revert can be done with another justification of the revert. JoachimKippenberg (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia works is:

All information must be sourced. If there is no source that supports a specific statement then it does not matter how true it is.
When there are disagreements then they are discussed on talk pages. If needed extra opinions are obtained. Unfortunately I only know a few people who are active on WP and have some level of expertise on such topics. The EM community is notorious for weak co-operation.
The one thing you cannot include is your own opinion, even if you are an expert. That applies as much to Ondre or Max as it does to either of us.

Rather than focusing on the Crewe work, what about adding a paragraph about correction in SEM and the work of others? Use Harald's paper 10.1093/jmicro/dfp012 and Mick's DOI:10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.06.006 for instance. Try and find some public domain images (if you know Max, Harald or Ondre then might provide). Etc. Improve by better coverage. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoachimKippenberg to repeat, just deleting text us not constructive. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least it prevents the dissemination of false information. And I did not just delete but a) wrote a reason for each bit and b) shifted the citation to the correct paragraph. I can not reasonably replace any false information with an arbitrary correct one, is it? Should I write that Scherzer did not experiment with charged foils but had a long beard, which is verifiably correct?

According to your standards given above, large parts of the article would need to be deleted immediately. The entrance paragraph is not sourced at all as are the complete present state and applications. And of course the demand for citation is nearly true for scientific articles (you cannot possibly source every statement in a text), but for Wikipedia articles it is a "nice to have" at best. Also, any text reflects the own opinion of its author, in the best case, he or she can give reference to others that share this opinion. This is how (also) science works.

Example: Obviously, the article's authors opinion is that Crewe is a most important figure in the development of aberration correction, more important than all the others of his time that did not even deserve a mentioning. And also more important than Krivanek, Rose, and Haider together that got a single sentence combined, while Crewe got one and a half paragraphs describing all his other achievements outside aberration correction. I have a very different opinion here and think that this depiction has to be changed.

In the mean time, I read the Wikipedia guidelines. They explicitly state that I should just write/change what I think is right and afterwards, if there is a dispute, discuss reasonably: "If you ever make a change that gets reverted by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a popular method of reaching consensus and may be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks." JoachimKippenberg (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaking what I said. Albert Crewe was included because I mentioned his effort to the student(s) who developed the page, not because he was thought to be more important for AC. Please do not read so much into things. Of course Ondrej, Max and Harald did more for AC, although Crewe may be a bigger person for EM in general as a pioneer of STEM.

I have said before that this is an incomplete draft. Please help improve it rather than deletion material that you do not think is appropriate. Wikipedia is complex, and we work on consensus, being polite. Always being polite. It is worth looking at some of the material in essays such as WP:IMPERFECT, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. While the revert/discuss cycle is common, it can also be very problematic. Please remember the five pillars of Wikipedia, in particular WP:5P4. You can check my user page and trace who I am, I am not "hidden", and I have worked for a while in EM. I have enough grey hair that I will defend the well-meaning but imperfect text of graduate students; they were only trying to help. Please don't attack their copy, that is inappropriate.

I for certain am not going to claim that the article is fine. However, it is a better start than what was there before. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., leads do not have sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]