CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

December 2014

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
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: LED lightsource vs classic xcite
From:
Craig Brideau <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:57:12 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines) 
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

What wavelengths do you need? Currently LEDs are a bit weak in UV
production. If all you need is a white light then LEDs are very good. If
you need fluorescence with different specific excitation bands then you
have to be more cautious.

Craig


On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Maria Y. Boulina <[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
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Dear Microscopists,
> I need your opinions!!  I am considering replacing  a regular xcite with
> the LED unit on an
> old  widefield  Nikon TE2000. How does the LED-generated light intensity
> compare to that
> from an old-school light source? Which make should I consider: Thorlab,
> Lumen, Cool Light?
> I am very grateful to all contributors, thank you for your time!!!
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2