JEOL EDS vs. Bruker EDS

[DirkMueller]

Hi!

I am on my way writing a funding proposal for a new EPMA - which will be a JEOL.

After a short discussion with John about the option of having two EDS systems, I would like to bring up this topic here.

Is it worth to have a JEOL and a Bruker EDS simultaneously - from a technical point of view, not a financial one? What are the pros and cons?

Thanks
Dirk

[Probeman]

I am on my way writing a funding proposal for a new EPMA - which will be a JEOL.

After a short discussion with John about the option of having two EDS systems, I would like to bring up this topic here.

Is it worth to have a JEOL and a Bruker EDS simultaneously - from a technical point of view, not a financial one? What are the pros and cons?

I know several people with two different EDS systems on their microprobe, for example Heather Lowers at the USGS in Denver has a JEOL EDS and a Thermo EDS on her instrument.

One reason this might be useful is to compare results from two different vendors.  Another reason might that the JEOL software only interfaces to a JEOL EDS, but some people prefer a different EDS software interface such as Bruker or Thermo, both of which interface to Probe for EPMA for quantitative point analyses.

I have heard that JEOL and Bruker are working to synchronize the Bruker hypermapping system to the JEOL WDS scan generator to allow the Bruker to acquire stage maps using EDS which can then be quantified, but I don't know when it will be available as an actual product.

[JonF]

We had to make a similar decision recently - not of whether to have both EDS systems on our new iHP200F, but whether to have JEOL or Bruker EDS. In the end, we decided it was not worth spending more and losing the EDS integration with the rest of the JEOL software ecosystem, so stuck with a JEOL EDS. I was happy enough with the performance of the JEOL EDS that I couldn't see where the advantages of the Bruker EDS system would be required: if there were any difficult situations for the EDS then I'd just pop that element on to the WDS. If I needed more counts, I could just turn the beam up. If deadtime was becoming an issue, I could either use the EDS apertures or... just put up with a higher deadtime? I've not really run in to that problem to be honest! 

I also wasn't sure how well integrated the Bruker EDS would be with the rest of the JEOL EPMA system. The OEM JEOL software can control both the EDS and WDS simultaneously: can the Esprit do the same or can it be slaved to the EPMA software? I can picture how it could do beam scan maps (as with an SEM), but can it also do stage scan?

As to whether I would have wanted both EDS systems at the same time, I'm not sure that the extra EDS detector would have been worth the extra outlay - the EDS systems aren't exactly cheap. That EDS port on the top of the iHP200F chamber is also in a very useful position - you could fit either a panchromatic (or monochromated?) CL system there, or one of the EDS-port mounted SXES-ER systems and either of these options would give you a lot more capability over a second EDS detector, in my opinion. 
If you were wanting an SXES system, the only way to get combined WDS, EDS and SXES that I'm aware of at the minute requires the xCLent box, which intercepts the scan sync pulses from the EDS system that you wouldn't necessarily have unless you went with the JEOL EDS system.

[Probeman]

I also wasn't sure how well integrated the Bruker EDS would be with the rest of the JEOL EPMA system. The OEM JEOL software can control both the EDS and WDS simultaneously: can the Esprit do the same or can it be slaved to the EPMA software? I can picture how it could do beam scan maps (as with an SEM), but can it also do stage scan?

I have heard that JEOL and Bruker are working to synchronize the Bruker hypermapping system to the JEOL WDS scan generator to allow the Bruker to acquire stage maps using EDS which can then be quantified, but I don't know when it will be available as an actual product.

Right now the Bruker (and JEOL) EDS can integrate to Probe for EPMA for quantitative point analyses, but is not yet integrated to the JEOL WDS scan generator which would allow both quantitative beam scan and stage scans for WDS and EDS on the JEOL.

[Jacob]

Software integration will always suffer with a third vendor in the mix. The Bruker team isn't always as responsive as they could be, especially to niche applications.

That said, when faced with the same dilemma, I chose to go with a dual Bruker EDS setup on the UBC iHP200F when we purchased it. One of the biggest reasons was so that we could integrate the Bruker AMICS (https://www.bruker.com/en/products-and-solutions/elemental-analyzers/eds-wds-ebsd-SEM-Micro-XRF/software-amics-automated-mineralogy-system.html) into the system. I'm sure there's value to combined stage WDS/EDS scans, but weighing it against the value of a full automated mineralogy system, I'd take the latter.

I'm sure my decision has caused Anette endless headaches trying to talk between Bruker, JEOL, and PfE, but I still think there's tremendous value in fast single instrument correlative automated mineralogy beyond the value of the stage scans.

[John Donovan]

I'm sure my decision has caused Anette endless headaches trying to talk between Bruker, JEOL, and PfE, but I still think there's tremendous value in fast single instrument correlative automated mineralogy beyond the value of the stage scans.

I wouldn't say "endless headaches"! 

But yes, Anette learned a lot from getting the Bruker system up and interfaced to PFE, basically because the Bruker client/server configuration is waaaaay more complicated than it really needs to be (though it is very versatile!).

In the end she was able to write up a really nice set of configuration notes that we now distribute to customers buying the Bruker EDS with Probe for EPMA.  So that was a good outcome!

[Jacob]

But yes, Anette learned a lot from getting the Bruker system up and interfaced to PFE, basically because the Bruker client/server configuration is waaaaay more complicated than it really needs to be (though it is very versatile!).

It's a little wild, isn't it? I really would like to know what strange instrument setups needed the full network client/server architecture.