Group,

I am also interested it this, especially in regards to the Zeiss 510
NLO. As was discussed here recently this instrument has less then
ideal functionality in MP mode, likely due I assume to their use of an
AOM instead of a Pockels cell. Has anyone on the list installed a
prechirper on such a system, or replaced the AOM with a Pockels cell?

Tom

Thomas Moninger [log in to unmask]
Assistant Director
University of Iowa Central Microscopy Research Facilities
www.uiowa.edu/~cemrf




Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.  Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Watkins, Simon C
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: pulse compression and MPE

folks, has anyone really noticed any real advantage from the pulse
compression strategies offered by Spectraphysics or Coherent?  We have
power to burn (literally!) in MPE sources nowadays, and while I
recognize the theoretical advantages of prechirping, I wondered if it
truly makes any practical difference in depth penetration into
specimens.
Simon

Simon C. Watkins Ph.D, FRC Path
Professor and Vice Chair Cell Biology and Physiology
Professor Immunology
Director Center for Biologic Imaging
BSTS 225
University of Pittsburgh
3500 Terrace St
Pittsburgh PA 15261
412-352-2277
www.cbi.pitt.edu