You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi Seto,
When I set the TEM properties in HRTEM simulation, the resulted resolution is much lower than the real TEM.
As you can see in the picture, Cc=1.6 mm and dE=0.8 eV only give ~0.1nm infomation limit. In modern aberration-corrected TEM, we can easily get ~0.06-0.07nm. Meanwhile, the Sidorov's ctfExplorer gives resonable esitimate.
In his website http://www.maxsidorov.com/ctfexplorer/, he said he changed the temporal envelope in latest version
And I finally found a different formula here http://ctfsimulation.bio.purdue.edu/java/, in which the coefficient changed from 1/2 to 1/16*ln(2)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thank you very much for your very informative report. You are a very insightful person.
This is because the previous version expected the sigma (σ) of the Gaussian function, not the full width at half maximum (FWHM), as the input value for delta E.
I have released a new version of ReciPro (ver4.813). In this version and later, the FWHM value is used as delta E.
Hi Seto,
When I set the TEM properties in HRTEM simulation, the resulted resolution is much lower than the real TEM.
As you can see in the picture, Cc=1.6 mm and dE=0.8 eV only give ~0.1nm infomation limit. In modern aberration-corrected TEM, we can easily get ~0.06-0.07nm. Meanwhile, the Sidorov's ctfExplorer gives resonable esitimate.
In his website http://www.maxsidorov.com/ctfexplorer/, he said he changed the temporal envelope in latest version
And I finally found a different formula here http://ctfsimulation.bio.purdue.edu/java/, in which the coefficient changed from 1/2 to 1/16*ln(2)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: