

In the 1950s, one could buy a miniature electron microscope. - asciilifeform
http://www.smecc.org/rca_emt_tabletop.htm

======
DarkShikari
While electronic microscopes are still costly, you can build a scanning-
tunneling microscope using nothing but a couple dollars' worth of parts from
Radioshack and Wal-Mart. A student at my old high school a few years ago made
one for a science fair project; it only created a one-dimensional image (he
didn't have time to extend it to full 2D) but it worked.

How it works: a piezoelectric material, such as that found in speakers, can be
manipulated precisely enough to move the head of a scanning tunneling
microscope. The "head" of the microscope can be made by using a pair of
extremely bad Wal-Mart scissors and cutting a piece of wire; this will usually
create a very rough cut with a tiny slice of wire that extends beyond the cut,
ending at atom thickness.

This wire can then be strapped to the piezoelectric material, and now all you
need are some basic electronics to power and run the thing. Of course, this
part is a lot of work, but it doesn't require any fancy expensive hardware.

~~~
keenerd
I did that once back in high school. This was my primary source, and probably
what you're thinking of:

<http://www.geocities.com/spm_stm/Project.html>

~~~
kragen
This is one of the sites Yahoo is throwing in the memory hole later this year,
right?

~~~
I_got_fifty
Yes, which is why we have Archive.org.

~~~
kragen
For now. It's a wonderful service and I hope it continues for a long time, but
you shouldn't depend on it to save any particular thing, and it's much harder
to find things in archive.org than on the open web. I'm still grieving over
the loss of "Networked PostScript Printer Installation as Illustrated Through
Interpretive Dance".

------
ellyagg
"A new, advanced model of the electron microscope, much lower in cost, less
complex and only 30 inches high, has been developed by RCA and will be placed
on the market later this year."

Ha. That link doesn't show you could buy miniature electron microscopes in the
50s. It shows that pre-release hype for vaporware was alive and well in the
50s.

~~~
joe_bleau
I found some references to that model in books, and people looking for spare
parts. I'd say they solidified that vapor and put it into production.

Did you notice the size of the HV supply and vacuum system?

One of these days when I'm rich and bored I'll have my own SEM...

------
davi
Looks like a system based on electrostatic lenses rather than the
electromagnetic lenses commonly used in TEM today.

Background: [http://books.google.com/books?id=y0FF19lud5YC&pg=PA162&#...</a>

------
argon
you can still build your own relatively easily. instructions here:
[http://japanitz.com/publications_files/A%20transmission%20el...](http://japanitz.com/publications_files/A%20transmission%20electron%20microscope%20for%20lecture%20demonstrations.pdf)

------
jacquesm
You can still buy them today. Pricing from roughly $20,000 and up for some
pretty impressive machinery. Or build your own for a fraction of that...

~~~
kragen
How do you build your own for a fraction of that? That sounds pretty awesome!

~~~
I_got_fifty
It sounds like a business venture, is what it sounds like.

~~~
kragen
Maybe. A lot of lab supplies are much more expensive than do-it-yourself
versions because:

* they aren't mass-produced,

* the people who are employed to make them are highly paid,

* the supply of grad student labor to substitute for them is limited,

* the required quality is high,

* and the costs of defective goods are high.

So high prices don't necessarily mean that Edmund Scientific is colluding
with, I don't know, Siemens, to fix prices at above-market rates. It more
likely means that it's damned hard to make a profit selling cheap electron
microscopes.

~~~
asciilifeform
There is a simpler explanation. What do you suppose the availability of
government grant money to most purchasers does to the price of a product?

~~~
kragen
In this case, I suspect that the answer is that it creates a market where none
existed before, because the price scientists were willing to pay was lower
than the price where anyone could make money selling TEMs or SEMs.

I haven't ever written a grant proposal, but I have the impression that if the
committee thinks you'll be wasting the grant money, you're less likely to get
the grant. I'd be interested to hear about your grantwriting experiences,
especially if they're different.

