An image in one of the SEM micrograph shows "S3400 15.0KV 67.3mm x 6 SE". Can anyone say me what does it mean ? How much magnification should I consider? shall i consider 6X as the magnification factor??
Microscope ID - accelerating voltage - working distance (ridiculously high) - "6" possibly means magnification, but better check a micron bar - secondary electrn detector.
Long working distance can help to obtain lowest possible magnifications for SEM, and x6 is definitely low magnification.
SEM operator should explain it to you.
Microscope ID - accelerating voltage - working distance (ridiculously high) - "6" possibly means magnification, but better check a micron bar - secondary electrn detector.
Long working distance can help to obtain lowest possible magnifications for SEM, and x6 is definitely low magnification.
SEM operator should explain it to you.
Hi Vladimir, WD is indeed very high but this is related to the extremely low magnification (and therefore not ridicules :-)). I guess that the operator had to image a comparatively large object like a fractured surface. We also do this in order to get overview images from an object after failure. SEM has nice properties because of the focus depth.
Thank you Vladmir sir for the explanation. Sir I still need a suggestion, since I need to write in my thesis. Will writing a magnification of 6X be apt?? Sir I am attaching a image. The regions which are marked red is still not clear. Will you kindly let me know
Yes, you can write magnification is x6 (6x is less common). SE - means secondary electrons, no connection with magnification. Even better to write "original magnification was x6", since changes with picture size change picture magnification when it is reproduced.
Hi Gert,
I agree that my wording was a bit off. On my everyday scope I need to take off a stage to get such a working distance, so I am usually a bit irritated when I need magnifications about x10.
I agree with Vladimir: x6 is more common than 6x, however, I do not know whether there is any norm.
Regarding the magnification: this value is actually related to the monitor used, e.g. 19". Only then the magnification is exact. For any reproduction (during your presentation) the magnification is different (and much higher :-) ). Unfortunately, we are so "fixed" to the use of magnification that we do not feel anymore how obsolete (actually wrong) this information is. The correct information is the scale bar (if calibrated of course).
Putting x 6 or anything similar has been very outdated. The images as they say other scientists who have answered this question, must be accompanied by a bar (which must be placed inside the box of the image) where you write to how many micrometers real corresponds to the length of the bar. Thus, by increasing or decreasing the size of the image on different monitors, where the image of the microscope can be observed, the bar decreases or increases, always giving the real value of the magnification.
The image in "SEM image.png 123.59 KB" shows a 5mm scale bar/graticule for the x 6 image. I would refer to the 5 mm graticule and forget the x6 - as Gert and Carmen wrote a magnification such as x6 is meaningless as it only applies if the image is reproduced at x6 scale - which is unlikley to be true. The 5mm scale bar/graticule in your image naturally resizes with the image.
I am agree with @Alan P. Boyle, that x6 is not describe magnification and it is very low to check morphology of the material except for surfaces.
please have a look on attached file it might be helpful to understand labeling on your image.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Structural Equation Modeling