*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I'm actually starting to become a fan of kit-bash laser scanning
microscopes these days.  They are often built with generic parts so if
something burns out or the like you can often find replacement parts
easily, or find something 'close enough' to substitute in.  A lot of optics
and mechanics vendors are beginning to sell these kits, and it gives you
the luxury of picking and choosing various components.  The key drawback to
this approach is software, but if you go with a good open source solution
like the ever-popular ScanImage or the like you can get what you need.
 With this approach you should be able to keep a `scope going for decades
if you keep backups of all the software and carefully document your design
so you remember what parts are where...

Craig


On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Dr. Gary Carr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
> *****
>
> Amen to that.......
>
> I run a private research foundation funded with income generated from my
> day job, so even small expenses are major ones to me.
> So I need to purchase used/donated/broken scientific tools and make them
> work. I used a Phillips 201 TEM for 15 years and kept it in top shape
> because of two things:
>
> 1. I had the schematics
> 2. I could do component-level repair on any of the boards.
> 3. There wasn't a computer that controlled every facet of the tool.
>
> So my 201 functioned at a level of other, more modern tools costing 100X
> as much.
>
> Today, at least on the Zeiss side, they won't give you the schematics.
> They, themselves,  don't do component-level repair on their boards; they
> just replace them.
> A very expensive way to function....if you are the consumer.
>
> One way to force consumers into expensive service contracts or the
> purchase of new equipment is to make sure that the user can never repair
> their tools themselves. Maybe the accountants have taken over from the
> microscope people?
>
> Gary
> Pacific Endodontic Research Foundation
> San Diego, CA
> www.perfendo.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]**EDU <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:53 AM
>
> Subject: Re: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
>
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
> *****
>
> Well, I'm sorry, but I don't go with this.  I come from an electron
> microscope background, and I know that we expected electron microscopes
> (which, to say the least, are pretty complex pieces of equipment) to last
> 30 years - and they did.  Philips kept germanium pnp transistors in stock
> for tens of years after they became obsolete so that their microscopes
> would keep running.  Optical microscopes, even scanning ones, have much
> less reason to become obsolete.  My 90-year-old Zeiss 'jug-handle' is still
> a state-of-the-art microscope in performance terms, in fact it has a more
> precise focus mechanism than any equivalent Zeiss microscope on the market
> today.  I could (and did) buy new objectives for it when it was 50 years
> old.  (I can't now).
>
> There is absolutely no reason why an optical or confocal microscope from
> the 80s should not still be working at a pretty good performance level - no
> reason, that is, apart from greed on the part of the vendors.  They chase
> the rich labs and neglect the poor ones.  There is nothing in a current
> confocal microscope which will make it perform better than a 20-year-old
> one.  (Sure, there are lots of convenience factors in the new ones.)  I
> would just suggest to purchasers that they look at the parts availability
> for 10-year-old scopes as a factor in their purchase decision.
>
> I know many vendors will cry 'foul' at this (my wife does!) but they are
> wrong, and short-sighted.  Bio-Rad were supplying obsolete boards for their
> MRC 500 and 600 scopes at 10 times or more of their original price just
> because that kept microscopes running for a fraction of the cost of a new
> one.  How is that a bad business model?  Both sides win.  Many customers
> switched to Bio-Rad just because a 3-year-old microscope from any of their
> competitors was dead in the water if anything went wrong.  The one thing
> that sunk Bio-Rad was an unwise reliance on the Cornell multi-photon patent
> (for which they paid a lot of money) to make their fortune.  This was bad
> on many grounds.  First, thinking they has a monopoly, they didn't see the
> need to develop their product.  Second, as always happens, other companies
> found loopholes and supplied more advanced systems.  Third, eventually a
> bigger and richer company decided that the simplest solution was to buy the
> patent holder rather than buy a licence.
>
> It's not just an economic issue, it's also an environmental one.  I am
> horrified at how many top-rank scopes are gathering dust in our facility
> and elsewhere.  The only way forward is for purchasers of high-end systems
> (I'm talking about the million dollar plus mark) to put into their purchase
> contracts a requirement for at least 20-year serviceability.  At that level
> companies will say yes, and that will trickle down to ensure that the
> smaller fry, without such leverage, will be able to keep their systems
> running.
>
>                                                Guy
>
>
> Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology
> by Guy Cox    CRC Press / Taylor & Francis
>    http://www.guycox.com/optical.**htm <http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm>
> ______________________________**________________
> Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon), Honorary Associate,
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis,
> Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006
>
> Phone +61 2 9351 3176     Fax +61 2 9351 7682
>            Mobile 0413 281 861
> ______________________________**________________
>     http://www.guycox.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cammer, Michael [mailto:[log in to unmask]**nyu.edu<[log in to unmask]>
> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 11:31 PM
> To: Guy Cox
> Subject: RE: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
>
> Based on a story from someone at BioRad who moved to Zeiss with the
> buyout, Zeiss didn't provide for saving BioRad parts.  On their own the
> BioRad employees rented a truck, threw the parts in back, and drove them
> down to Germany.
>
> We were BioRad owners in the U.S.  Soon after Zeiss bought BioRad they
> sent BioRad owners a letter with a phase-out schedule for supporting the
> BioRad hardware.  We are now two years past the final phase-out date (if I
> remember correctly).  So we were warned.
>
> Do Leica, Nikon, Zeiss & Olympus support equipment from the 1990s (or even
> 2000-2001) anymore?  I can't even get a simple N.A. 0.55 condenser for the
> Olympus IX70 (well, if I asked on the microscopy bboard maybe I could get a
> used one).
>
> And computer equipment.  We have an Andor camera, only two years old, with
> a PCI board but all the new computers come with PCI Express.  This delayed
> a recent repair by a week when the computer on our TIRF system died.  And
> Nikon doesn't even provide support for 32 bit computers anymore.
>
> Regardless how Zeiss handled the Biorad buyout, a decade later the
> technology has changed so much that it's time to let Zeiss off the hook.
> ______________________________**__________________________
> Michael Cammer, Assistant Research Scientist
> Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine
> Lab: (212) 263-3208  Cell: (914) 309-3270
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@**LISTS.UMN.EDU<[log in to unmask]>]
> On Behalf Of Guy Cox
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]**EDU <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
>
>
> So how is it that Zeiss, who claim to do their best to support Bio-Rad
> customers after the takeover, have not bought these boards?  Maybe list
> members should draw their own conclusions.
>
>                                        Guy
>
> Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology
> by Guy Cox    CRC Press / Taylor & Francis
>    http://www.guycox.com/optical.**htm <http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm>
> ______________________________**________________
> Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon), Honorary Associate, Australian Centre for
> Microscopy & Microanalysis, Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW
> 2006
>
> Phone +61 2 9351 3176     Fax +61 2 9351 7682
>            Mobile 0413 281 861
> ______________________________**________________
>     http://www.guycox.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@**LISTS.UMN.EDU<[log in to unmask]>]
> On Behalf Of test_message
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 6:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]**EDU <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
> *****
>
> I am the designer and manufacturer of these boards, and I'm clearing out
> the office prior to retiring. I have an amount of - mainly - ISA Vis boards
> which will be skipped unless someone is interested. It needs to be
> commercially neutral, but I'd rather they found a home than landfill.
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://confocal-microscopy-**
> list.588098.n2.nabble.com/**Biorad-MRC1024-MRC600-Scan-**
> and-Vis-boards-tp7578537.html<http://confocal-microscopy-list.588098.n2.nabble.com/Biorad-MRC1024-MRC600-Scan-and-Vis-boards-tp7578537.html>
> Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>