Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

I've found small hair scrunchies work better -- more absorbent, and
no wire to scratch things. This from our Zeiss rep.
Phil

>In reference to inverted systems,  I used one a while back that had pipe
>cleaners wrapped around the barrel of each immersion objective to soak up
>oil that had oozed down the side.  It seemed like a primitive but worthwhile
>attempt to limit the problems discussed here.  As long as the pipe cleaners
>are replaced routinely, it might be worth a try.
>
>Carl
>
>Carl A. Boswell
>Dept. of Mol. Cell. Biology
>Univ. of Arizona
>(520) 626-8469
>FAX (520) 621-3709
>[log in to unmask]
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kenneth A. Orndorff" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:17 AM
>Subject: Re: Objective gasket failure
>
>
>Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
>Confocal BB,
>         Thanks everyone for the tips on cleaning.  I would like to say that
>we do indeed use these good cleaning habits and we try to take excellent
>care of these very expensive elements of the system. It is really the more
>serious issue of what I believe is objective failure at the gasket that I
>wanted to address.
>         Tom Gore is reporting exactly the type of problem that I think we
>should expect to be able to avoid with reasonable care and treatment of our
>objectives.  I am especially concerned about objective failure because our
>core facility has just purchased a new inverted confocal system that will
>emphasize live cell work.  Therefore, the inverted objective will be far
>more easily covered in oil. I  expect that the higher  37C temp also  places
>a much greater demand on the seals of the objectives.  We have a water
>immersion objective for the long term studies of live cells.  But other core
>facility users with fixed samples will also want to use the system when it
>is warmed, so the issue of oil running down the objective will still occur.
>         Are microscopists to consider $5000.00 +  objectives as disposable
>items? I would like to think not.  This is my first experience with a gasket
>failure in nearly 25 years of working with microscopes. Thus, my first
>response was that something funny was going on.  So I am just checking with
>with everyone to see if similar events are happening out there.
>         I  wonder if it might  be possible for microscope companies to
>recertify the objectives for a much reduced cost than required when a total
>failure occurs.  Possibly providing a loaner?  I can dream. :-)     Is it
>possible to remove aging but intact sealant and apply a new coating at a
>much reduced cost and much more quickly? Is it possible to avoid designs
>that have readily exposed sealing gaskets?   Any thoughts that you have
>would be of interest to me.  Thanks again to all.
>
>
>Ken
>
>Ken Orndorff
>Supervisor-Imaging
>H.C. Englert Cell Analysis Lab
>Dartmouth College/DMS/NCCC
>Borwell Building Room 338 West
>One Medical Center Drive
>Lebanon, NH  03756
>
>Phone 603-650-7661
>FAX    603-650-6130
>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~celllab

--
Philip Oshel
Supervisor, BBPIC microscopy facility
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Wisconsin
1675 Observatory Drive
Madison,  WI  53706 - 1284
voice: (608) 263-4162
fax: (608) 262-5157 (dept. fax)