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

Yes! I agree! These sources are very bright, even the lowest setting is
usually too much for our fluorochromes and can even damage plant cells. We
also had to get ND filters.

And ditto, stability and lifetime are the two key issues, stability more
than anything.

Rosemary White
CSIRO Plant Industry
GPO Box 1600
Canberra, ACT 2601
Australia

T 61 2 6246 5475
F 61 2 6246 5334
M 61 2 420 972 028
E [log in to unmask]


On 7/11/13 2:40 AM, "Claire Brown" <[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
>*****
>
>We have been testing a number of the solid state light sources. We do a
>lot
>of live cell imaging and they are all way too bright for live cells. We
>either add more ND filters so the cells don't die or we turn them way down
>in % output if that is an option on the light source. The companies seem
>to
>be making them brighter and brighter. I would love to know what
>applications
>people have that need all this light? We usually advise people to use less
>light and longer exposure times even with fixed samples.
>
>That being said we were able to get institutional support to replace our
>mercury sources as part of a sustainability program at McGill in a Mercury
>Free Microscopy initiative. This will save us lots of time and money in
>replacing the mercury bulbs all the time in addition to a reduction in
>mercury. Depending on how the sources are used they can also save a lot in
>power consumption too.
>
>We have been more interested in stability of the light sources on
>different
>time scales and they really perform well. Variability is in the single
>percentage range or less on most time scales. I would be happy to provide
>more information to anyone offline if they want to contact me.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Claire