CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

April 2008

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Date:
Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:51:23 +1100
Reply-To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Zeiss vs Leica
From:
Adrian Smith <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines) 
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

On 01/04/2008, at 7:19 PM, Michael Weber wrote:

> Yes, the SP5 detectors are water-cooled. The performance in terms of
> signal-to-noise is really nice


Is that true of the "standard" SP5 or is that something new with the  
SP5 X? I don't recall seeing anything in the SP5 literature about  
water cooling (or cooling or any sort) but I might have missed it? Is  
anyone else using cooled PMTs?

Also I noticed the SP5 X brochure that Leica is claiming "best red  
emission detection available" - does anyone know what is behind this  
claim, ie have they done something new with the SP5 X or would they  
also make that claim of the "standard" SP5?

Regards,

Adrian Smith
Centenary Institute, Sydney, Australia

ATOM RSS1 RSS2