We have a four year old JEOL 6400 instrument with a Link eXL analyzer, UTW detector, complete stage automation. We also have a computer system attached for collecting digital images, we do not use polaroid film. While this individual has used and SEM he has not used either a JEOL or LINK system before. I feel that training would be extensive. This is currently the only SEM we have.

It is used approximately 12 hours per day by myself and my staff. Quite often EDS analysis is carried out using computer control and stage automation overnight. However, management feels that if someone is willing to utilize the instrument in those few hours a week when it is not being used, they need to take advantage of that to receive a maximum benefit from the asset.

Several years ago we had two older SEMS and due to 'corporate downsizing', we had only one operator. At them time I trained approximately 2 dozen engineers who desired to use the 'extra' SEM on their own. We disposed of the instrument about a year ago when it had not been touched for almost a year. The time I spent in training all of those individuals was probably greater than the time they as a group spent using the instrument. Hindsight being perfect I wish we had kept the old instrument!

Anyway, I would appreciate any input both pro and con from the list regarding opening up an instrument to multiple infrequent users.

Bonnie Davis
bld_kmt@prlc.org

Dear Bonnie,
I run a Materials Engineering EM lab at the University of British Columbia, with two SEMs and a TEM. Most of the researchers who use the instruments are graduate students and Research Engineers. I have always encouraged these people to do their own research on the SEMs, as much as possible, since only they know exactly what they want and that way one me can keep three instruments optimally used. After I show them how to use the SEM, I watch and encourage them to ask me for further instruction for picture taking, higher mag, etc. Some people, who have a lot of work to do, may gain my permission to use the SEM after hours, but only after I feel they have gained a lot of experience during working hours, when I am there to supervise, and only after I have instructed them on how to properly shut down and what to do in the event of problems. I also purchased the instruments originally with ease-of-use in mind. They are fully automatic and easy to get good results on.

I must feel that the person has a good understanding of the important issues and knows how to properly handle the instrument. Mind you, I don't have a field emission SEM. I have had damage, but only once in 15 years and it could have happened in normal hours.. It also helps to scare them, be "the ogre of the EM lab". Mind you, we are a teaching lab, so the learning is as important as the doing.

I know many EM operators do not like the idea of letting any ham-fisted graduate student or engineer loose on their instrument, but modern SEMs really can be operated by any intelligent being.

So long as you satisfy yourself as to this person's knowledge, experience and caring, I'd see no harm.

Mary Mager
email: mager@unixg.ubc.ca

Hello Everyone,
I'd just like to put in my two cents on the subject of multiple users of an SEM (or in my case an electron microprobe)

Our instrument is used at least 16 hours a day and since I'm only paid for eight almost all our users are trained to use the machine independantly. This allows them faster access to the machine and saves them or their advisors money. The only people we don't encourage to become independant users are those who will only use the machine once or twice. Most users require 3-4 daytime shifts before i will let them use the machine independantly (I give them my home phone number too).

In the six years I've been running the lab I can't recall one incident where the machine has actually been damaged by inexperienced users. On several occasions it has been temporarily put out of commission (computer problems, etc) but usually I can get it back on line immediately the next day. Although there is the potential for a user to damage the instrument (i.e during a sample change) most of the rest of the instrument is fairly fool proof. It is easy to screw up your analyses, but difficult to hurt the machine.

I'm sure the machine would last longer and require less service if I was the only one operating it, but we don't have that option. I also feel that users are much better off acquiring their own data, they know what they want and can change their strategy if they find something unexpected

Glenn Poirier
glennp@eps.mcgill.ca

Bonnie, Since we encourage use of the JEOL TEM and SEM by trained users, we run into this situation often. Currently, we require training on our instruments plus a minimum of 15 hours of daytime use prior to an approval of use during off hours. The principal investigator (of the grad. student or postdoc) is also asked to agree to cover costs should any malfunction necessitate lengthy (costly) alignment procedures. I constructed a form for this purpose and the signed agreement is kept with the log book at the scope. This has given me some control over the situation and those users who agree to our demands are usually competent users. If the SEM uses a LaB6 or is a FE, I would be more cautious, i.e., demand more daytime use and obtain written consent to replace the crystal/filament.

One last thing to consider---an estimate of costs incurred by your unit during the required "daytime" use if your unit does not charge other units for instrument use.

Rosemary Walsh
rw9@psu.edu

Good Morning All,
Bonnie Davis asked concerning multiple users for a corporate (emphasis on corporate) SEM. So far I have seen three responses, all positive and all appearing to have come from academia. Speaking as the manager of an industrial R&D analysis group, I totally disagree. It is my opinion that off-hour use of an instrument that is essential for support of "corporate technology" is not worth the risk of the potential down-time this could create. We allow VERY little non-department use of one of our SEMs, and only that during normal working hours by people who are qualified by training and experience, and NOBODY outside the department uses our FESEM. We have had complaints from recently hired materials science PhD's about this policy, but it stands. (I thought Bonnie was referring to our company when I first read her question.) We are often called upon to rapidly respond to manufacturing problems which require instrumentation which is up and ready to perform. Management might think it a good idea to get more out of an instrument during off-hours, however, they would be the first to seek heads if a manufacturing problem could not be addressed immediately because an instrument was down due of misuse by an inexperienced operator. The academic environment is usually not under these time stresses that are normal to industry. We are frequently called upon to address problems with multimillion dollar consequences and obviously turn-around time is imperative. Production managers do not understand the concept of an instrument being "down." I would weigh any decision to allow multiple users very carefully, particularly if there is only one instrument available.

Bob Craig
craig@rd.sylvania.com

I must echo Bob Craig's observations about "external" users. He could have easily written that word-for-word as a fellow employee here. Our back-up plan for extended use of high-demand instruments is to go to an informal swing schedule. Fortunately we have not had to resort to that officially, but most of our gang have a lot of "after hours" time logged. One method we have utilized for increasing throughput on our "automated" instruments is to dial in from home with Timbuktu and AppleTalk Remote Access to check on progress. If something has gone amuck, we can either fix it remotely or zip in to work, fix it and resume the experiment. It's not pleasant to come in at midnight instead of going to bed, but our customer's anxiety (hence ours!) is greatly diminished the next day.

Bill Heeschen
Email: waheeschen@dow.com

I missed the replies prior to the one by Bob Craig of OSRAM SYLVANIA, Inc. but will respond as it appeared that he was in the minority. I agree totally with Bob except that NOBODY outside our department is permitted to use our SEM (or any other microscope for that matter) AND only those within the department who have been specifically trained and approved are permitted to use them; these few individuals are in fact trained microscopist and it is their job to perform such tasks. This is all for the reasons that he stated so "eloquently". We are fortunate that management understands the need to limit use to assure minimal down time. This is perhaps a good time to point out that for industry, rapid manufacturer's support/service is equally important as performance of an instrument (everybody listening?)

Damian Neuberger
neuberd@engrnd.roundlake.baxter.com

Check the person out on the machine. If he doesn't measure up to your expectations of what an operator should know for independent operation, don't let him on the machine after hours. Let him be supervised until he does measure up.

- -Scott Walck
walcksd@ml.wpafb.af.mil

This has been a problem for us at times. The real issues are; the ability of people to work together, and the cost of maintenance, and keeping the instrument in top condition. We find it possible to have up to about 3 operators, as long as they can work together well. They also need to be in the same department (i.e. financed together). Pride in the condition of the instrument and the quality of results is critical.

There can be other issues, like job security. If allowing someone access you are putting someone else out of work...........

When the machine breaks, whoever had their hand on it, must immediately get it fixed. This works best when there's a service contract.If there's an assigned technician, this may not be a problem for you.

My overall impression is that the number of operators must be limited to a couple who can work together well, and not quibble over who did what.

Dave King
deking@vnet.ibm.com

Dear Bonnie;
Being from industry myself, I can certainly understand Management's desire to utilize any resource to its fullest extent. They also have to ensure that individuals are cross-trained to some extent to allow for vacations, sick time, turnover, etc. However, as a Scientist and Microscopist, I have to say that your instincts about training additional operators are probably correct. It sounds to me like you already have enough "ammunition" to suggest that multiple users are not necessarily a good idea. My recommendation would be to approach Management from a cost perspective (i.e. calculate the value of your time and how much it cost to train a single operator vs. the time it would take for you to do a job for him.) For this purpose, we typically use a value of $25/hr. for a nonexempt associate, $35/hour for an exempt associate such as a Scientist, and $50/hour for Management associates. Don't forget to include the Engineer's time as well as your own during the training exercise. Your system is very similar to ours, and I agree that the training would be rather extensive. You will also still be responsible for maintaining the system unless you want to get into training that individual in those aspects as well; I would add this to my cost analysis. Who knows, maybe it will be worth it to you in the end to have this individual trained...from personal experience, I kind of doubt it. We found that one primary operator, and one backup was more than adequate for our purposes. Good luck.

Bob Citron
Bob_Citron@cc.chiron.com

A different perspective:

In a commercial organization, an instrument is a resource for all. The question can not be is a person allowed to use a resource because they are or are not a member of a particular work group. The question must be how do we maximize productivity. Working within this framework, here are two observations to balance:

It is typically counter-productive to have relatively inexperienced users operate instruments which are either finicky or complex.

It is typically counter-productive to have expert users repeatedly perform a relatively simple analysis.

Now for the reduction to practice. We have trained researchers from a variety of groups to use our microscopes, OM, SEM, and TEM. This has included training an inexperienced researcher on a FEG-SEM. We have never had a mishap which cost us more than a few hours of instrument time. The OM and SEM training has benefited productivity. However, TEM training has been another story. Inexperienced researchers were repeatedly retrained, resulting in an inefficient use of expert personnel.

Good luck to all,

Craig Garrison
cgarri@mastnet.net

Dear Bonnie,

We have operated a JEOL 733 electron microprobe ( presently with a Link eXL system ) for the past 11 years, and prior to that a Mark V. Our policy has always been to allow multiple users including graduate and undergraduate students. In 25 years we have had only one bad experience.

Bob MacKay
e-mail rmackay@ac.dal.ca

View From A University Central Service Microscopy Lab

As the Director (and only employee) in a lab with a TEM, SEM, confocal, imaging equipment, photographic darkroom, and the usual ancillary equipment, and no service contracts, I could not function if I had to do everything for users. Ninety percent plus of my users operate the equipment themselves. However, less than 5 users are 100% qualified to operate the EM's when I am not present. I insert and remove specimens, and for the TEM, process the negatives. Obviously, users undergo training, and during training one can pick up cues as to the user's future behavior. Our equipment is very user friendly, and that makes a big difference.

Obviously in industry where down time is unacceptable, this approach would not work.

Bruce Cutler
BCutler@eureka.chem.ukans.edu

This is an interesting problem. I have had to train other users to use my SEM, but have always found it to be a waste, since they didn't use it enough to remember the training. I had to go over things each time they wanted to use it.

However, if you are forced to let this person use the SEM, here are some guidelines.

Mark the saturation point clearly, and make it a rule to not go past that mark.

Have a log book handy for the part time user to record any 'unusual' occurences in operation, or to write questions down. Have an emergency number to call for help. (I know this is a pain for you, but could save on instrument downtime and repair costs.)

That's all I could think of right now, but I hope it helps.

Melanie Behrens
MelanieOwl@aol.com

Hi Bonnie,

One point that everyone seems to have missed on this subject of multiple users is output quality. There is no substitute for the skill gained with experience.

We tried running two SEM's in our lab, and found the overall quality of the images produced by our "trained" multiple users was not as good as the images produced by an experienced technician.

george.braybrook@ualberta.ca
George Braybrook

There has been alot of comments on the matter of multi-user of and SEM. I have been on both sides of that fence. I operated and SEM for years at the Bureau of Mines until I took a research position. With my position I had the need for SEM work. This I was able to do most by myself. I am now with a company that does not have an SEM so I have to use the one at the university. While I was the operator I was very choosey about who could use it. Only a hand full of people asked to use it and when I started the training they decided it was to much to remember and that I should do it because they did not have the time to do it correctly. Now that I use someoneelses I am very carful to follow all the instructions, I want to be able to come back. I also felt very uncomfortable the first few times I was left alone with this instrument, now I am familiar with it and use it much more. I guess what I am trying to say is some people have no idea about an instrument and are hot shot scientist, newly graduated PhD's and others. These are people to be aware of. Multi-users are okay depending on the type of business you are in and the personnal. I thought an opion from the other side should be expressesd.

Clarissa Vierrether
cvierret@misn.com

Bonnie,

The Integrated Microscopy Resource (IMR) is an NIH biomedical research technology resource. We have a Hitachi S-900 FESEM with cryo-capability and a YAG backscatter detector. As one of the few microscopy facilities open for biologists, the novel instruments at the IMR are made available to users world wide for biomedical research projects. Our user base consists of senior investigators, post-docs, and graduate students.

As an NIH resource, the use of instruments is reserved for medical research projects that require the specialized aspects of the available instruments. Our SEM usage policy consists of three levels of approval: basic use, backscatter detector use, and cryo-stage use. I provide user training and supervise the use of the SEM for the first 20 hours. After this time, approved users may be upgraded to unsupervised users who are permitted to work independently after hours. Facility keys (either short or long term) are available for unsupervised users. For this system to work it is critical to give each user comprehensive instructions on use of the equipment, to establish clear rules with regard to general use of the facility, and most importantly to have an individual with the authority to monitor and enforce these rules.

Our open use policy has been in place for 9 years with the SEM and 25 years at our facility. Project approval and user training prior to equipment usage has resulted in much success and very few problems. When problems have arisen the solution has been for me to re-train the user and continue to supervise them for longer time.

Hope this information answers your question.

Ya Chen
Email:YChen@macc.wisc.edu
Email:chen@calshp.cals.wisc.edu

Hi all,

I snipped the above lines from Ya Chen's response to Bonnie. As Nestor posted last week, there have been some difficulties with the server, and it seems that I have missed some of the posts.

I hold a position at the University of Iowa's Central Microscopy Research Facility. We are a multi-user resource for microscopy related techniques. We have two SEMs that we train people to operate. ANYONE can use our facility, as long as we train them, or/and they prove themselves competent in the operation of the instrument. At that point, they are issued keys, and can reserve the instrument to suit their schedule. We have never had to ask for keys back from an individual, and any problems that have occured were corrected with additional training.

We do have service contracts on our microscopes, and I can be fairly handy with a tool box. Knock on wood, we have yet to have a catastrophic event (one SEM is a field emitter). With the robust design of modern electron microscopes, I don't anticipate any, either.

For more on the operating philosophy of our lab, as well as instrumentation available, I suggest you visit our website at http://www.uiowa.edu/~cemrf/.

Randy Nessler
rnessler@emiris.iaf.uiowa.edu

We too allow users on the scope after training as many in academic settings appear to do. I routinely query the potential users about the realistic duration of their work as we have trained some at their insistence only to find out they have no specific project in mind, or that their actual SEM usage was not nearly what they first imagined. Of course, since they are charged for operator assistance, I guess we will continue to train them if they care to pay for it.

Now a question,

We have adopted the practice of leaving the filament current control on our JEOL 840A at the proper saturation point (for our normal 15 kv operating point) and just turning off the high voltage control for exchanging samples. We have thus avoided problems from inexperienced operators over-saturating. It appears to be working as our filament lifetimes have increased to the values for when only experienced users operated the scope. My question to the list is whether there might be any adverse consequences from this practice as there do not appear to be any.

Warren E. Straszheim
E-Mail: wes@ameslab.gov (or: wesaia@iastate.edu)

Dear Warren,

We always leave the filament current up to the saturation point (or just under it for maximum filament life). In fact, to stop little fingers, I removed the filament current knob from my console years ago. I can change it with a screwdriver when I need to. I always turn the acc. voltage on and off and I get at least a month out iof a filament at 20kv. I don't know if I would do it on my 200kv TEM, but SEM is fine.

Mary Mager
email: mager@unixg.ubc.ca

During the years 1963-1967, at what was then Case Institute (now CWRU), during the conduct of my MS and Ph. D. thesis work, I did with my own two hands, all of my own TEM work which at times involved in excess of thirty hours instrument time per week over extended periods of time. As a lowly (yes, we were definitely made to feel lowly) graduate student, to this day, I remember how I had to tip-toe around the manager of the EM facility. All of the graduate students had their own keys both to the EM lab and also the darkroom, but one snap of the manager's fingers could have keys snatched away in an instant. And for the entire four years of my career as a graduate student, I did have my own keys and for the most part, that part of my thesis work requiring EM was done between the hours of 6:00 pm to 12:00 midnight (often times later), and without supervision. Indeed virtually any graduate student who had need for EM work was issued keys and for the most part, their work was done during these "off hours" as well.

Indeed, to have the experience of actually being responsible for the health and well-being of the instrument, and to be held accountable for it, I always considered an important part of my own graduate experience and education.

And sitting there, night after night, peering at the green image on the screen, and experiencing that electrifying feeling that comes only when seeing something for the first time, something perhaps no one else has previously seen, was a part of my own life I will never forget. The challenge of proving first to myself and then to others that what I thought I had seen was in fact "real" and was not an "artifact" has had a lasting positive impression on my own life and my own career for that matter. After all, how else can one learn to be their own worst (best?) "devil's advocate" if they have not done the work themselves?

How else can one "sell others" on the idea that what they have indeed seen is real and not some preparation artifact? How many times have I listed to presentations by one of those arm chair EM people and when asked a question, could not even tell whether a sample was gold coated or not! Or with what a TEM sample might have been stained. Not too long ago I witnessed a speaker not being able to answer whether a micrograph was by SEM or TEM. Such responses hardly evoke high levels of confidence in someone else's conclusions.

Yet I can also remember some students who did not have research projects depending that much on EM, perhaps their use of EM being confined to closing a few lose ends, and where the inclusion of some EM work was just a small part of their overall project. Indeed, either because of less interest in doing it with their own two hands, or perhaps other reasons, these students had that laboratory manager, the one who made us jump through hoops, do the work, during daylight hours with the student peering over his shoulders. On the other hand, there were those who did have minimal need for EM work, but underwent the extensive training voluntarily and with enthusiasm as part of their overall graduate training experience.

I appreciated that lack of bureaucracy that existed in those days, and the climate was such that the highest levels of curiosity were encouraged. There is no question that if I was not able to have done my own work, in the way that I did it, yes, perhaps even late at night when there were fewer building vibrations and toilets flushing, I would be a much different person. After all, at 1:00 am, when something does go wrong, to deal with it, on your own, responsibily, to make judgemental decisions, with no one else to turn to, is in itself an important part of the educational process.

And what about down time? Of course there was the normal down time and probably there was more down time than might have other wise been the case because there were multiple users. But it was never an excessive amount of downtime. And these were during the times when instruments were not engineered like they are today, and if anything, relative to modern instruments, the amount of downtime experienced should have inherently been significantly more than would be the case today. But excessive downtime never happened. Indeed seeing the way some of these judgemental decisions were handled in those days has been valuable in the management of my own analytical laboratory services business today.

I have followed the discussion on this listserver. I am really quite surprised with the bureaucracies that seem to have evolved to somehow "protect" the equipment from mere ordinary "mortals". What happened to the ability to use the same kind of good judgment that abounded in the EM laboratories of thirty years ago? Of course it is always easier to go by way of a script and never deviate. Go by the book. After all, no decision making has to be done at all. But something very very valuable and fundamental is lost when those with the interest are not able to sit down and take their own data, at their own speed, and on their own terms.

I can appreciate the concern about minimizing downtime more than most people, in my case, such costs come right out of my own pocket. It is a very real concern. However, be it in industry or academia, give a lot of thought before you shut out that inquisitive researcher who just might make that big discovery that moves us all forward another notch. A well managed industrial laboratory should have made provision for emergency scope access anyhow so even if there was a bit of additional downtime, surely that can not be thought of as throwing a monkey wrench into that company's ability to have an instrument available to work on solving emergency plant problems. If you have an instrument that is that sensitive to multiple users, perhaps the time has come to look at insturments made by some other manufacturer.

Charles A. Garber, Ph. D.
GVKM07A@prodigy.com

I would like to express very strong agreement with the sentiments of Chuck Gabor; certainly within the academic setting protecting microscopes from students is counterproductive. One thing I will argue is a credit to our current system here is that we allow undergraduates to have hands on experience using SEM's and TEM's.

While it is true that there are dangers of breakages, so what! To my knowledge almost all the "big names" in electron microscopy made stupid mistakes at one time or another - one example that I know of involved switching of the vacuum and water lines on a TEM.

Laurie Marks
ldm2@apollo.numis.nwu.edu

I have run an EM service unit for over 25 years during time which the question of hands-on usage of the instruments has often been discussed. This unit's size (4 EM's and a staff of four) is probably common to many throughout the world and from what I have seen of the present discussion on this issue our problems/experiences/solutions are similarly shared by many people elsewhere.

While there is no doubt that instruments will be better off if only operated by trained full time EM Unit staff this policy is seldom practical. Policies in force 25 years ago, when it usually required the skills of regular operators to get the best out of electron microscopes, no longer need to be so rigidly applied. Today, not only is it easier for practically anyone to get good results out of modern EM's with a minimum of training but also it is much less likely that an inexperienced user will cause any serious damage (with instruments such as our JEOL 1210, filament saturation is pre-programmed and even if finger-happy users create havoc with the beam the correct alignment can be fully restored in one simple operation). We have found that to work effectively the policy needs to be flexible and dependent largely on two important factors:

- the nature and extent of the work
- the aptitude of the user for using this instrumentation.

In very general terms the policy successfully applied here is that if a user's project is of the "once-off" variety (likely to involve only one or two sessions) we will carry out or closely supervise almost everything involving our equipment, but at the same time encourage the user to share in the viewing, interpretation and photography of images, etc. If the project will require repeated use of the EM (more than, say, 3 or 4 sessions) then we find it worth our while to train that user to operate the instrument more-or-less by themselves. The extent to which this training extends depends on the anticipated amount of usage and the perceived ability of that user to handle these instruments. What generally happens is that the longer that person uses the instrument the more procedures he/she will be taught to perform. For a while this operation is confined to just viewing and micrography with assistance being given in other necessary operations such as specimen and film exchange. Seldom, however, does user training extend to anything beyond actual operation procedures (specimen exchange, viewing and micrography). Although specimen preparation by properly trained people is routinely allowed after hours in the EM Unit, use of the EM's is very seldom permitted when no members of the EM Unit staff are in the vicinity, mainly because of the validity of the university's insurance cover (both for the user and the instruments) in the event of an emergency under such circumstances. Maintenance operations such as start- up, alignment, filament exchange, etc, are not carried out by users.

Although it is sometimes seen to be discriminatory to have one policy for one group of users and another for others, as soon as the rationale behind the policy has been made clear we have seldom had any further problems. As a result this compromise policy works well and as long as our circumstances remain as they are I see no reason to make any significant changes.

Robin Cross
eurc@giraffe.ru.ac.za

For those of you that simply turn off the voltage and leave the filament at saturation, do you have JEOL's LaB6 preheating unit? Or do you even have LaB6 filaments?

Incidently, our policy is to turn up the filament by stepping 1/2 grad. per 30 seconds until saturation. We have many experienced, intermediate, and beginning users and have no problems with tip life. This may due to the fact that we make sure all of our users are aware of the $600 price tag! =)

Gary Krichau
gkrichau@unlgrad1.unl.edu

Dear Warren,
I assume the filament can be switched off with the current control in the appropriate position, as is the case for our EM's. If so, there will be no adverse effect for W, and presumably LaB6. If the filament is still drawing current with the HV off, there should only be the effect on filament lifetime equal to the number of cumulative hours of specimen exchange and the occasional disaster when the filament is not turned off over a weekend.

Yours,
Bill Tivol
tivol@wadsworth.org

My thanks to all who replied to my question about leaving the filament control knobbed turned up to the saturation point on our JEOL 840A (with W filament). The consensus appears to be that there is no problem with the practice.

Note to Bill T.,
We have been leaving our filament current knob turned up over days on non-use and don't appear to be losing any filament life for it. Therefore, it appears that the current is turned off internally when the high voltage is turned off.

Warren E. Straszheim
E-Mail: wes@ameslab.gov (or: wesaia@iastate.edu)