*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

I find table thickness to have some pros and cons.  A really thick table
will react slowly to any bumps, or people leaning on it, due to its mass.
 I find smaller individual microscope tables with the 2" thick tops allow
the `scope to bob around a bit too much if somebody bumps it.  You can set
your dampers to reduce this depending on the table design, but generally a
thicker, heavier table responds more 'patiently' to any perturbations.  The
drawback is that for thick tables you can't put your legs underneath.  I
mean the operators's legs, i.e. the poor person who has to sit at the
microscope.  We have 18" thick tables in our labs so using the eyepieces
for any long period of time would probably be uncomfortable: You can't
'sit' at it because there is no room for your legs underneath.  The good
news for us was we use laser scanning scopes, so the eyepieces are used
only to focus on the sample initially then everything is done via the
computer.  You can get a 4" top for small microscope tables that can be a
good compromise for individual rigs, but it depends on how much damping you
need overall and operator comfort tends to get pushed to the bottom of the
priorities list.

Craig




On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, George McNamara
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
> *****
>
> Hi Kate,
>
> Yes. Even high resolution confocal microscopes benefit from a serious air
> table. Thick table, big legs. Table somewhat larger area than absolutely
> necessary. For the STED proposals we submitted last September (my thanks to
> the NIH S10 HEI and DoD DURIP reviewers for any nice comments), TMC table,
> 300 mm thick, Gimbal piston isolators (aka "fat legs"), 2x2 meter table
> (two 2x1 meter modules, to be joined  on site).  The table Leica shipped in
> for the CW-STED demo was a joke (see 2009 table thinness at
> http://www.leica-microsystems.**com/products/confocal-**
> microscopes/configurable-**confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/**innovation/<http://www.leica-microsystems.com/products/confocal-microscopes/configurable-confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/innovation/> ).
>
> As David pointed out, you should still plan to register the data.
>
> On the positive side, my Leica confocal/STED salesperson told me good
> things about the new model:
>
> http://www.leica-microsystems.**com/products/confocal-**
> microscopes/configurable-**confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/**
> details/product/leica-tcs-sp8-**sted/<http://www.leica-microsystems.com/products/confocal-microscopes/configurable-confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/details/product/leica-tcs-sp8-sted/>
>
> though I am baffled why Leica is pushing a CW depletion laser(s) with time
> gated detection.
>
> Also odd that they have no connection between "STED" and "SMD"
>
> http://www.leica-microsystems.**com/products/confocal-**
> microscopes/configurable-**confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/**
> details/product/leica-tcs-sp8-**smd/<http://www.leica-microsystems.com/products/confocal-microscopes/configurable-confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/details/product/leica-tcs-sp8-smd/>
>
>
> I am curious to see how much (if at all) motCORR helps my users (assuming
> we ever find money for upgrade or trade-in)
>
> http://www.leica-microsystems.**com/products/confocal-**
> microscopes/configurable-**confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/**
> details/product/leica-motcorr/<http://www.leica-microsystems.com/products/confocal-microscopes/configurable-confocal-leica-tcs-sp8/details/product/leica-motcorr/>
>
> George
> p.s. I have STED proposal stuff posted at
> http://works.bepress.com/**gmcnamara/3/<http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/3/>
> http://works.bepress.com/**gmcnamara/13/<http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/13/>
>
> See also the new Ikataki and Bokor fluorescence depletion paper at
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.**optcom.2012.04.028<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2012.04.028>
> and     http://projectreporter.nih.**gov/project_info_description.**
> cfm?aid=8344866&icde=12760271&**ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=3&**
> csb=default&cs=ASC<http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8344866&icde=12760271&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=3&csb=default&cs=ASC>
>
> Not nanoscopy, but I hope anyone who has - or is thinking of buying - a
> Leica FDC495 color camera will find useful the web page text and download
> tips at
> http://works.bepress.com/**gmcnamara/17/<http://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/17/>
> If someone knows a (software only please) "Leica hack" to adjust the dark
> current so that the camera reads above zero intensity level (at gain of 1,
> gamma of 1, saturation 1, and exposure time <2 seconds) - say something
> like the Canon Hack Development Kit whose URL was recently posted (thanks
> to whoever did that) - would be great.
>
>
>
> On 6/7/2012 4:18 PM, Kate Luby-Phelps wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>> *****
>>
>> I am interested people's practical experience regarding the level of
>> vibration
>> isolation required for single molecule imaging and super-resolution
>> imaging.
>>
>> Specifically,  our new building has a z-axis vibration spike that reaches
>> VC-A at
>> a single frequency (below VC-C in x,y and z for all other frequencies).
>>  If they
>> are unsuccessful at remediating the spike, would we need active air
>> tables for
>> high-end instruments?   Most of the scopes in question would be inverted.
>>
>> Putting the question another way, would we need to reach VC-E or lower for
>> single molecule and super-resolution imaging?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kate L-P
>>
>>
>>
>