The change of source of illumination from light to electrons significantly improved the \(\underline{\hspace{2cm}}\) of the microscope.
Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks which property of a microscope was most fundamentally improved by switching from using photons (light) to electrons as the illumination source.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The ability of a microscope to distinguish between two closely spaced points is known as its resolving power or resolution. This ability is fundamentally limited by the wavelength of the illumination used. The relationship is described by the Abbe diffraction limit, which states that the minimum resolvable distance (d) is proportional to the wavelength (\(\lambda\)).
\[ d \propto \lambda \]
Electrons have a much shorter de Broglie wavelength than photons of visible light. By switching from light to electrons, the wavelength (\(\lambda\)) of the illumination source was reduced by several orders of magnitude. This dramatically decreased the minimum resolvable distance (d), thereby significantly increasing the microscope's ability to see fine details. This ability is called resolving power.
While magnification was also increased, the improvement in magnification is only useful if the resolving power is high enough to make the magnified details clear. The primary, limiting factor that was overcome was resolution. Resolving power is the direct measure of this ability.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The change of source of illumination from light to electrons significantly improved the resolving power of the microscope.
Match the LIST-I (Spectroscopy) with LIST-II (Application)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Visible light spectroscopy | III. Identification on the basis of color |
B. Fluorescence spectroscopy | IV. Identification on the basis of fluorophore present |
C. FTIR spectroscopy | I. Identification on the basis of absorption in infrared region |
D. Mass Spectroscopy | II. Identification on the basis of m/z ion |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Forensic Psychiatry | III. Behavioural pattern of criminal |
B. Forensic Engineering | IV. Origin of metallic fracture |
C. Forensic Odontology | I. Bite marks analysis |
D. Computer Forensics | II. Information derived from digital devices |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Calvin Goddard | II. Forensic Ballistics |
B. Karl Landsteiner | III. Blood Grouping |
C. Albert Osborn | IV. Document examination |
D. Mathieu Orfila | I. Forensic Toxicology |
Match the LIST-I (Evidence, etc.) with LIST-II (Example, Construction etc.)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Biological evidence | IV. Blood |
B. Latent print evidence | III. Fingerprints |
C. Trace evidence | II. Soil |
D. Digital evidence | I. Cell phone records |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Ridges | III. The raised portion of the friction skin of the fingers |
B. Type Lines | I. Two most inner ridges which start parallel, diverge and surround or tend to surround the pattern area |
C. Delta | IV. The ridge characteristics nearest to the point of divergence of type lines |
D. Enclosure | II. A single ridge bifurcates and reunites to enclose some space |