Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T09:03:43.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Factors Which Influence The Development And Success Of An Academic Electron Microscope Facility: A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

J. C. Wheatley*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ85287-1504
Get access

Extract

There are many electron microscope centers around the world and it is well recognized that there is no single “right” way to develop successful research and teaching electron microscope organizations.

The model for this discussion is that of the Center for High Resolution Electron Microscopy (CHREM) at Arizona State University. Several factors, including but not limited to those discussed below, have contributed to the continuing growth and development of this Center.

The Center serves students and faculty from eight separate academic units. It is also accessible to a significant number of microscope users from outside the university. These include researchers from industry as well as other academic institutions. The number of active instrument users typically averages eighty per year. There are ten instruments available to those who successfully complete the requirements for microscope use. It is not necessary to discuss the physical plant which houses the Center's instruments. Although very important, this topic has been adequately discussed elsewhere by experienced researchers.

Type
Msa Technologists' Forum Special Topic Presentation
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Turner, J., et al., Proc. Microscopy and Microanalysis Volume 3 (1997) 11771178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Murphy, J., Proc. Microscopy and Microanalysis Volume 2 (1998) 902903CrossRefGoogle Scholar