CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

October 2009

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Craig Brideau <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:26:08 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
You must have some strange patent issues.  I am not a lawyer, so take
what I say with a grain of salt, however it seems that as long as it
is for use in your own lab and you are not selling a product involving
fs lasers or otherwise profiting then you should be within your rights
to simply remove the stretcher block from your system.

Craig


On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Evangelos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>     Femto is not always necessarily better.   You can safely use more
> average power with picosecond compared to femtosecond to go deep into brain
> or muscle tissue.  I have found that picosecond is /sometimes/ better than
> femtosecond, even for SHG.  Femtosecond will give more initial signal but
> picosecond signal will stay constant, longer, at the same power, in tissue.
>  Also, for our confocal core's speciality: CARS microscopy, picosecond is
> far superior in that it matches the vibrational linewidths and doesn't dump
> a lot of energy in a broad spectral region like femtosecond pulses.
>  Dispersion is far less of a problem with pico and not as much need to
> pre-comp, but I do believe for THG, and if you have very weak 2-photon
> signal you would have to used pre-chirped compressed femtosecond pulses,
> with SHG on collagen, 2-photon with more average power, and CARS you're ok
> with pico, otherwise you need femto.
>
> Best,
> Evangelos
>
> Advanced Biological Imaging Scientist
> Harvard Center for Nanoscale Systems
> 11 Oxford Street
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>
> Manja Schubert wrote:
>>
>> Dear Confocal list members,
>>
>> I have a question to multiphoton technology - femto second IR laser versus
>> pico second IR laser.
>> We run in following problem. We have a femto second laser but because of
>> patent law we can use it only with attenuation filter and a pulse stretcher
>> meaning in the end we scanning with a pico second IR laser.
>>
>> Has anyone experienced how that effect the scanning outcome? For example,
>> the possible deepness of the scan. Any thoughts are highly appreciated.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Manja
>>
>> Dr. Manja Schubert
>> University of Bergen
>> Department of Biomedicine
>> Jonas Lies  vei 91
>> 5009 Bergen
>> Norway
>> Tel:+47-55 58 67 15
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2