*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
Hello to all,
I work for Prior Scientific but this is not meant as a commercial
response. It is an offer to loan equipment if someone wanted to collect
data with it and share it with this list community.
If someone (should be a non-commercial entity) wanted to spend some time
employing a method of testing as the full illumination system supplied
from the manufacturer along with the recommended filter sets etc. and
not just the particular light source standing on its own, I would be
willing to help by offering to loan our spectral power meter and
software to them. We purpose developed this tool to characterize the
light exiting the objective lens for these very reasons. (The data sheet
for our LumaSpec 800 is online at our website if you want to look at
it.)
This thread has several great comments, information, and suggestions. I
certainly agree that measuring off the scope has meaning, but ultimately
the characterization of brightness (and other factors such as stability)
to eventually choose one illuminator over the other for the person's
application ought to be determined on the microscope tested as a system.
You could have the most powerful, most versatile illuminator on the
planet on the bench right behind your microscope but it might not
perform as you expect. In other words a car with 600 horsepower and
square wheels doesn't get you very far.
Something as simple as the optical coupler / adapter to the microscope
can attribute to light loss and have a huge effect on the final output
exiting your chosen objective lens. There are a host of other things
that can also play a role that have been mentioned by others such as
simple alignment issues, incorrect/misaligned/ unmatched filter sets
etc. so what begins outside the scope eventually changes quite a bit on
its way to your sample for a variety of reasons.
So if you want to give this a whirl please let me know and drop me an
email. I will also be at Neuroscience next week (and Cell Bio next month
as well) in our booth if you would like to speak to me directly about
this.
Thanks and Regards,
Dennis
Dennis Doherty
National Sales Manager
Prior Scientific, Inc.
80 Reservoir Park Drive
Rockland, MA 02370
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Brightness difference Hg vs LED
*****
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
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
WARNING: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
|
