CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

February 2009

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
Sender:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Andreas Bruckbauer <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:58:09 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Reply-To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (10 lines)
I disagree with Emmanuel, UV Raman is an established technique, fluorescence
seems to be a problem above 300 nm, Semrock has some information on their
website. However you need special lasers, optics, spectrometer and detectors
which are more expensive and you might damage your sample easily. For
biological samples near IR is the wavelength of choice. 
In your sentence you would say "scattered" instead of "reflected" Raman
signal, it scatters can go in all directions.

Andreas

ATOM RSS1 RSS2