> Paul  Myers recently wrote:
>>
>> We just recently were awarded an NSF grant to purchase a confocal: the
>> complete setup, with computer, lasers, microscope, storage, etc. came out
>> to $230K.
>>
 
>> >
>> >Optiscan manufacture a unique fibre optic confocal system here in Australia.
>> It
>> >is a complete confocal system which fits onto any microscope. This is
>> >achieved by attaching the scanning head to a camera port of the
>> >scope. It is available for around US$72,000.
 
...etc....etc...
 
 
 
 
I MUST (as one with product engineering and cost evaluation experience)
throw in my measily two cents because I am greatly apalled at the truly
amazing prices asked (and paid !!) for these quite simple - in concept, at
least, improvements on the conventional microscope:
 
 
Confocal principles are relatively simple and straightforward.
 
The components are relatively cheap.
 
The only unique parts, as far as I can understand, are software and a small
part of the optical train.
 
Therefore, and forgive me for stepping on toes, why must a $10K microscope,
a $200 laser, a $2500 computer, and a $1000 (generous here) sensor/camera
add up to such numbers as $250K because of a little label whose name begins
with N or Z ?
 
(The same comment also applies to DNA sequence machines priced at $150k.
In that case you haven't even got a $10k microscope to be proud of, and the
plaque has a "B" on it.)
 
Am I missing a really big point, or are you guys who are spending the money
on these fabulous but way, way profitable devices watching so much TV that
you now believe in name brands, advertising, and tiny little raindeer ?
 
Maybe some of you have a few bucks to invest into a startup venture to
capture some of the truly incredible profits appearing to lie on the table.
Just for the sake of mentioning it, there must be far more aggregrate
technical capability on this list than in the combined talents of all
existing confocal builders, so talent is not a barrier.  OK, so it IS a
$25k microscope, but reading my own words, I'm beginning to be convinced of
an opportunity here.  What do you think ?
 
 
Cheers and Regards,
 
 
Ed Monberg
In Palo Alto