2 ms·

I'll readily admit that I'm not a STEM expert. And, honestly, I think I was conflating the STEM in this article with Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (http://en.wi

by awgl 12y ago

I'll readily admit that I'm not a STEM expert. And, honestly, I think I was conflating the STEM in this article with Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope). So, yeah, my comment is not entirely accurate about the electron densities of the atoms. If you feel it is too misguided, I'll remove it. This is what happens when you ask a theoretical chemist to explain an experiment. ;)

Osmium 12y ago
> And, honestly, I think I was conflating the STEM in this article with Scanning Tunneling Microscopy It's easy to do. TEM/STEM vs SEM vs STM. All completely different things. This is what happens when scientists name things :P For those confused: TEM/STEM: An electron beam is transmitted through your sample. Good for atomic-scale imaging. SEM: An electron beam is scanned across your sample, but none are transmitted through. Good for topography/surface features (the interaction volume of the beam is too large for atomic resolution). STM: No electron beam. Instead think of a vinyl record player, and physically scanning a very sample tip across the surface of your sample. Good for atomic-scale imaging of a surface. A good STM image and a good STEM image can, at first glance, look quite similar (especially for a 2D material like graphene), but they're very different techniques.