Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T21:47:43.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dear Abbe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2016

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Dear Abbe
Information
Microscopy Today , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 73
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2016 

Dear Abbe,

An ongoing hair-pulling dispute continues between me, the microscopist, and, like, almost every fraternity/sorority member doing research: “Why do you take so many images for each sample? Wouldn’t, like, 2 or 3 pictures be just as good as the 5 to 10 you took? I [the investigator] still like totally can’t get over you embedding 6 blocks and sectioning all those blocks as semi-things!” How do you handle this scenario? How do you demonstrate that more in EM is actually better!?

Alopecic in Amherst

Dear Hairless,

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there were many smart people who pondered, “How much is too many, and what are we doing in these ridiculous lab coats?” We got together to discuss this at long-winded meetings that included alcoholic beverages and decided that lab coats were cool. Especially lab coats with many pockets and an impressive logo on the upper left. We also realized that there can be many potential images to be created by sample processing, just as there are many versions of Shakespeare by Hairy Monkeys. Also, depending on your state of consciousness while preparing the samples and mounting, you could have created many alternative realities, but which samples were real? To decide this, we invented photomicrography so we could study the results later in a local Kneipe. Then we had to decide how many samples we had to look at, and just what was a “sample” anyway. This made the Zöllner happy, and we eventually came up with the only correct answer: Lots! So be reassured that you are following in the footsteps of great microscopists: me and a few others.

Dear Abbe,

I think the gold-palladium target on my sputter coater might be getting close to needing a replacement. How can I be sure?

Cautious in Caracas

Dear Cautious,

Hasenpfeffer! It’s usually not that hard. Once you notice that seeing the purple haze requires more mind-altering drugs (my method of choice), then it’s probably time. The other alternative sounds quite sketchy (and probably illegal in Kansas) as suggested by Fred Monson in the Microscopy Listserver. It required gloves, a dark room, a viewing apparatus, and something about an “anulus.”

No one likes to be caught with their equipment in disrepair, or holes in their excuses! Need a good scapegoat or viable story? Herr Abbe can provide some doozies. Just contact his questionably sane assistant at to have him give it a try.