I have to agree with Ed.  Keep in mind that we are a scientific lab with
tons of things at our disposal (optical tables, lasers, etc..) but we found
almost everything we needed to make our own confocal was already in the lab.
We bought a couple of long working distance microscope objectives ~ US$2k
ea. and with a little bit of tinkering had a CLSM inside of a month. It is
definitely something a grad student could do over the summer.
 
I think I should show the guys I work for these postings and tell them I
saved them $246k ;-)
 
 
Richard Jennings
[log in to unmask]
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
At 12:15 AM 8/1/96 -0700, you wrote:
>> 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
>
>