CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

March 1997

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:
"Martin W. Wessendorf" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Martin W. Wessendorf
Date:
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:21:54 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
In message  <v01540b06af49a6c008d5@[152.1.175.49]> Confocal Microscopy List
writes:
> Dear Jody:  Why should there be a problem with the larger coverslips?
> Generally, you should use a #1 1/2 coverslip since the objectives are
> corrected for that.  Nina Allen

Sometimes a thinner coverslip can be advantageous, if there's a lot of mounting
medium on top of a section of tissue.  The use of a #1-1/2 coverslip assumes
that there's nothing intervening between the bottom of the coverslip and the
sample.  Thus for cells grown on a coverslip, a #1-1/2 is probably perfect.
However, for other applications a #1 may be better.

Martin Wessendorf

ATOM RSS1 RSS2