Jump to content

Talk:Atomic force microscopy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TAG

[edit]

I think this article should be tagged for review by an expert , it seems to be a bit incoherent. Akashag27 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I agree, it needs lots of editing, the references should be numerical, shouldn't they?--Jpeaton (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detection Method

[edit]

I think most AFM's (I know of, anyway) use the laser reflection detection method. Feel free to put back the interferometry if I'm wrong.

RE: Added some other possible detection methods. Although laser reflection is most common, things like interferometry, piezo-levers etc. are used as well in some (and growing) applications -- PMH, July 7, 2006

The original AFM as built by Binnig &co had an STM on the back to detect lever deflection. I think a few groups now are developing MEMS based levers for more accurate detection of deflection (although I can see this approach creating new problems the optical lever approach doesn't have). DJ

I fail to see how a longer cantilever amplifies changes in the beam angle. The cantilever would have to be extended beyond the scanning tip in order to amplify changes in the beam position (but not angle). Icek (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imaging Modes

[edit]

I tried to make the section on imaging modes more self-consistent using my experience with AFM and the already provided information. This section still needs a lot of work. Phancy Physicist (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tapping Mode

[edit]

Also, I think tapping mode is a trademark of DI/Veeco, but I'm not sure if it's "tapping mode" in general or "TappingMode" which they've got on their website - if someone is better informed, fill me in. --Bibble 13:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RE: Tapping mode is not a registered trademark anymore(search for TappingMode on www.uspto.gov), however the Tapping patent by DI/Veeco is still maintained.

RE: Perhaps adding more information about phase imaging and how it can detect different materials on the surface.

RE: In my opinion, there should be a section on Non-contact AFM(NCAFM), which would include tapping mode as well. -- RK, October 20, 2007.

Re: This is easy enough to get around by renaming the section Intermittent Contact mode. -elypse Nov. 28 2007

Non-Contact Mode

[edit]

I edited this section because it was too specific in that it focused NC-AFM around surfaces with adsorbed liquid only. My corrections were intended to generalize the description of NC-AFM and expand on NC-AFM as it applies to surfaces with adsorbed liquid. Jatosado (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Force

[edit]

Perhaps this article should include what force is being measured? For an AFM its the van der waals interactions between the tip and the sample, but the article doesn't indictate this. 24.59.193.0 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims Casimir forces are also used in AFM. This looks like impossible, Casimir forces are too little to be measured between plates the size of a door. Could somebody double-check this?
Definately literature on this. Don't have a reference to hand though...82.5.50.61 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umar Mohideen at University of California Riverside has done substantial work on measuring the Casimir Force. I attened a talk he gave at Harvey Mudd College in which he discussed his use of an AFM to measure the Casimir Force. The setup is rather novel: an atomicly flat conductive substrate such as gold, a probe with a polystyrene sphere attached to the end, an AFM, and a system for ensuring the respective surfaces are electrically nuetral. I suggest searching the litereture if you are still skeptical. Keep in mind that the AFM can resolve features on the order nanometers. In other words the instrument is capable of very small movements in the z direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.159.152 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except when it was, in 2001 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.041804 --A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Force
[edit]

The AFM isn't necessarily measuring the van der Waals interactions, it simply is measuring the deflection of the cantilever, of which some force is exerted on. What this implies can vary, you can get van der Waals interactions (depending if you control your experiment correctly and apply the applicable modeling theory), among/ other things, such as friction data, capillary forces, hardness of a material, etc.

Re2: Force
[edit]

Added other forces besides van-der-Waals. Agree with writer above, AFM is just measuring whatever forces are present, depending on situation. Of course, Van-der-Waals is important, as it is the one force that is always present. Maybe a discussion of different forces & related techniques would be useful or would that be too much ? -- PMH, July 7, 2006

Nanolithography and nanomanipulation

[edit]

Perhaps there should be a little more info on the ability for using AFM's for manipulation, for example nanolithography, or for moving around and cutting up large molecules like DNA?

--Kiwifish 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Here's a better link, nanolithography


Veeco Images

[edit]

Microscope Images

[edit]

Additional Modalities

[edit]

The article does well in addressing the salient features of the instrument and the most prominent imaging methodologies, but there are many adaptations of the AFM: AFAM, RDF-AFUM, MFM, etc. I think it would be appropriate to expand the article to include, at least briefly, descriptions of these imaging methods. --Geodesic42

Most detailed molecule image

[edit]

BBC. can someone who knows the subject matter well update either this or proper article for ITN purposes. thanks. If the image itself can be included then that would be great too. -- Ashish-g55 20:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HSAFM?

[edit]

Should there be a section concerning High-Speed AFM and it's advantages/disadvantages? HSAFM rfwebster (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC) There certainly should be. It's on my to do list. The Bristol/Infinitesima work is only a minor part of that. Allardkatan (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The Reference list seems to be highly biased judged by the author lists, especially of the last citations. I suggest to cite more general reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.254.47 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest that in this case there simply aren't enough people who have a clue in this field for more to have been published yet, especially given the relative newness. There are some topics with papers by a single group of authors. Confirmation from other research groups would be nice in those cases but sometimes it's prohibitively expensive for anyone without huge amounts of government funding or access to restricted materials to confirm any of it. This is probably one of those cases as well, considering the cryogenic cooling systems required for accuracy. If I dedicated the rest of my life to duplicating results I probably could assuming I also built literally everything from scratch because I'm guessing the cryogenics alone run in the hundreds of millions.
Edit: In other words, this is the kind of project universities have convinced the entire population that an undergraduate degree will get them employment in order to fund if they're not getting government money. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protein/Ligand interactions

[edit]

In the article cited for biological utility for AFM (citation 11) at no point is there any discussion of protein-ligand interactions. I took the liberty of taking that part of the sentence out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images of molecules

[edit]

Nearly four years ago, the popular media published this nice image of pentacene: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209726/Single-molecule-million-times-smaller-grain-sand-pictured-time.html "'This is the first time that all the atoms in a molecule have been imaged,' lead researcher Leo Gross said."

By now, shouldn't we have seen many more (and/or higher-quality) images of molecules? The lack of additional images makes me wonder whether the first image was a hoax. 174.24.17.119 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IBM later recorded images of other small molecules, like File:Olympicene AFM.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a nice writeup (abstract only unless you have access) about it in Physics Today recently, it's legit. a13ean (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. I have seen images through a real atomic force microscope in first year, but where are all the images? I'm searching all over the internet and I'm disappointed in the lack of images of everything. ugh [EDIT: found this http://nano.em.keysight.com/index.php/image-library] 24.141.2.226 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Image Caption Reads as though it's an Advertisement

[edit]

It would appear the image has been added to the page by someone with commercial interests in Cypher, perhaps slightly more generic phrasing is in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.179.203.52 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names of AFM modes for imaging topography

[edit]

Noncontact AFM is a bit of a misnomer and the use of this term to describe an AFM mode for imaging topography in scientific literature has lost popularity in the past 5 or so years. It is more common to describe AFM modes for topographic imaging in in terms of the applied feedback mechanism i.e. Contact Mode AFM, Amplitude Modulation AFM, and Frequency Modulation AFM as opposed to Contact Mode, Tapping Mode, and Noncontact mode. I think the adjusted terminology should be applied to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.178.4 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I agree. I started a little bit on thiAllardkatan (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)s but it needs work.[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Atomic force microscopy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs updating and improving

[edit]

As a present for his 70th birthday, my father, Martijn Katan, asked me to edit a Wikipedia page. I naturally turned to the thing I know most about, the Atomic Force Microscope. As someone with 14 years of experience in using, designing and modifying AFMs, I see a lot of things wrong with this page. The structure is very confusing, some things are explained five times and others are completely left out. E.g. the fast force mapping methods that are becoming popular now are not even mentioned, even old school force volume is not in there. The strong link between AFM and many other SPM techniques like KPFM, SSRM, PFM etc is not clear. The list of applications is extremely limited. There are hardly any AFM images to illustrate the capabilities. The list goes on.

I have started doing a major overhaul, but I don't want to rewrite this whole page on my own, as this is not what Wikipedia is about. So I call on any AFM experts that read this page to help me improve it.Allardkatan (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the velocity of AFM

[edit]

When people move little groups of atoms together with software control, what is the velocity of that process?

The article does not yet say. I wrote a thing suggesting a little clump of atoms could be constructed every 1/10 of a second, (basically,on a platter put grouped atoms together that might form a superconductor with afm, then laser warm them to crystallize, then rotate the platter like a disk drive to detect meissner effect variations at a number of temperatures to find new superconductors, 1/10 of a second sample prep is 300 million samples a year) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One online reference says a diffraction grating can be imaged at one second. Another reference says a complex image like C60 is 1/3 of 200 seconds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imaging is not the same as nanomanipulation. Moving a single atom over a few nm takes only a fraction of a second. However, preparing a surface such that you have the atoms you want in place, identifying the different atoms and figuring out how and where to move them can take anything between days and years.Allardkatan (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atomic-force microscopy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STM

[edit]

In the paragraph "Other microscopy technologies", the abbreviation STM has not been defined. Is this Scanning Tunneling Microscope?

Mathyeti (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invention of AFM

[edit]

"The AFM was invented by IBM scientists in 1982".

Where does the year 1982 come from? Most articles I have seen attribute its invention to the year 1986, and there is nothing in the cited article referencing the stated year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cachinnus (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it was first described in 1986, in the paper "Atomic Force Microscope" by Binnig, Quate and Gerber, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 56, Pages 930-933.Jpeaton (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atomic force microscopy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of this question?

[edit]

What's the purpose of question ? Rizosome (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May want to add info on C-AFM

[edit]

The page on Conductive atomic force microscopy may want to be referenced in the "see also" section, and in the text. I'm not an expert on this topic nor experienced with Wiki edits so I don't feel comfortable doing so. MatthewJenkins02 (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atomic_force_microscopy&oldid=1224222311"