Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
One more thing to keep in mind is that the scan head configuration also
plays into it. Depending on where the PMT's are located, one of them
receives the light 'directly' from the prism system, whereas the other
PMT's are getting their light bounced off of the mirrors that control
the spectral window for that first PMT (is usually PMT 2 I believe). Of
course mirror losses should be fairly minimal, so this is probably not
the only factor here. I do think it is pretty important however.
-Russell
Guy Cox wrote:
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Quoting Karl Garsha <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Has anybody determined a benchmark for evaluating PMT sensitivity on the
> > SP-2 platform? I've recently discovered that our PMT 1 is showing
> > roughly 30% of the sensitivity of PMT 3 and PMT 2 is showing 65% of the
> > sensitivity of PMT 3 (at either end of the spectrum). This is a little
> > alarming and I would like to determine whether PMT 3 is in fact
> > performing well or if the sensitivity is down for it as well. Thanks in
> > advance for any suggestions.
>
> Depending on your system they may well be different types of PMT -
> I think our system has 1 bi-alkali and the others multi-alkali. So
> check that first. Generally one would expect that more blue-sensitivity
> is desirable on PMT1 and more red on PMT3. The other thing to remember
> is that voltage response may vary and a more accurate control is
> obtainable signal to noise ratio.
>
> Guy
>
> --
> Associate Professor Guy Cox
> Electron Microscope Unit, F09
> University of Sydney NSW 2006
> +61 2 9351 3176
--
Russell McConnell
Confocal Imaging Facility Manager
Department of Neuroscience
Tufts University
136 Harrison Ave.
Boston, MA 02111
Tel. (617) 636-3795
http://www.neurosci.tufts.edu/Imaging
