Air tables will go a long way to damping noise.  Generally, the lower
the frequency response of the table, the better.  I remember hearing a
story about a fellow who was taking electrophysiology readings from a
patch-clamped cell when a moderate earthquake occurred.  His rig was
on a high-quality floated table.  He evacuated the building but forgot
to shut off his experiment.  When he came back he checked his data and
could see no noise from the earthquake in his readings!  This is a
severe case of course, and usually the problem is some strange motor
vibration or the like that sneaks in to the system because it happens
to match a resonant frequency of the system.  This is why a low
frequency response is good; it is less likely to find a match in the
surrounding environment.

Craig


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Glen MacDonald
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> right now, we are surrounded by construction of a new building .  Lab
> supplies are jiggling on the shelves because of compactors mounted on
> excavators packing fill dirt and track mounted jack hammers  doing
> demolition.   The air tables on 2 confocals and 2 widefield systems seem to
> be blocking everything, as checked by z-series and fast timelapse on beads.
>
> Positive pressure filtered ventilation would keep dust from coming in under
> the doors.  Ours is allegedly filtered but a white dust keeps appearing in
> one of the imaging suites.
>
> Regards,
> Glen
>
> Glen MacDonald
> Core for Communication Research
> Virginia Merrill Bloedel Hearing Research Center
> Box 357923
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA 98195-7923  USA
> (206) 616-4156
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ******************************************************************************
> The box said "Requires WindowsXP or better", so I bought a Macintosh.
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Adrian Smith wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a large
>> new research building which will incorporate an (optical) cellular imaging
>> facility.
>>
>> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
>> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the facility
>> located on the 4th floor.
>>
>> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical microscopes,
>> ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time the facility is
>> built), super-resolution.
>>
>> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
>> technologies)
>>
>> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
>> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement - ie
>> just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built building? I
>> know of many places (here included) where advanced microscopes are NOT on
>> the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there are locations where that has
>> been a failure or there have been unexpected complications etc.
>>
>> All feedback gratefully received.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adrian Smith
>> Centenary Institute, Australia
>