[3DEM] Why FEG?
Henning Stahlberg
HStahlberg at ucdavis.edu
Fri Apr 23 09:59:48 PDT 2004
Hi,
The biggest difference between a FEG and an LaB6 performance seems to
me to arise from the effective electron source opening angle, when
short cryoEM exposure times are considered. I used 0.1 mrad for a FEG
and 0.7 mrad for a thermal electron source, see also Jong & van Dyck,
Ultramicroscopy 49, 66-80 (1993).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3991(93)90213-H
Even when only interested in 0.5 nm resolution, the difference is
significant, see
http://www.amp.ucdavis.edu/index.php?p=download
Those are CTF simulations made with a simple MS-Excel sheet, which is
also on that server.
Henning.
Henning Stahlberg, Ph.D.,
Molecular & Cellular Biology, Briggs Hall 115B,
UC-Davis, 1 Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA
Tel: +1 (530) 752 82 82 Fax: +1 (530) 752 30 85
mailto:HStahlberg at ucdavis.edu
http://www.amp.ucdavis.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 23, 2004, at 1:43 AM, Philip Koeck wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I’ve been playing around with Max Sidorow's CTFexplorer and I’m
> finding it hard to see the
> advantage of FEG microscopes for structural biology.
>
> At 61000-times magnification I can’t see any major difference between
> the Tecnai 20T and
> the Tecnai F20T for example.
>
> Only at magnifications beyond 300000 is the F20T clearly superior (due
> to better spatial
> coherence).
>
>
>
> Am I (or is CTFexplorer) missing something relevant?
>
>
>
> The CTFexplorer can be found at http://clik.to/ctfexplorer.
>
> Upon request I can also send a Word file with the CTF-plots.
>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
More information about the 3dem
mailing list