Hi,

The spectral distribution is, indeed, more uniform but is only about 20%
the intensity of the mercury arc, along the visible portion of the
spectrum.  The two cross over around 580nm but the real effect of the Xenon
would not be experienced until its 826nm peak, well outside the range of
normal fluorescence microscopy.

If you send me your fax number, I can fax you a comparative
spectrum.  Alternatively, visit www.Omegafilters.com.  I think  that they
have this comparison on their website.

HTH,
Barbara Foster
Microscopy/Microscopy Education
125 Paridon Street, Suite 102
Springfield, MA 01118
PH: 413-746-6931  FX: 413-746-9311  Web: www.MME-Microscopy.com/education

"Why didn't they teach us that sooner?"  ... probably because no one
thought to call MME about customized, on-site courses.  Offered in all
areas of microscopy, sample prep,and image analysis, they make an immediate
impact on your productivity.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


At 04:01 PM 2/27/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I would be interested in contacting people who are using xenon short arc
>lamps (not flash or pulsed) for conventional fluorescence microscopy. It
>seems that the spectral distribution of the emitted light is more uniform
>than that of mercury arc lamps, and even more efficient in the range of
>500 nm.
>Also, xenon arc lamps last longer than mercury arc lamps.
>
>How experienced people compare both alternatives in terms of
>specifications, versatility and cost?
>
>Thanks very much,