Thanks so much for the generous replies I received so far both on and offline. By the way we visited the three top vendors and saw the systems in operation. We were slightly handicapped since at startup we don't yet have crystals and had to rely on standards, but the applications scientists were all very helpful.
We are considering sealed tube sources, CCDs, etc., and we have an ample set of contacts with experience on these systems to advise us. But I should say that the purpose of my message was not to compare systems. This would be sensitive to do online anyway. The issue is the reliability in a home lab as has been well stated below, specifically for the newer components. Nothing like a satisfied customer to reassure on that point (or to warn about potential problems), and that's what I'm looking for with regard to the new detectors especially. Many thanks again. Fareed On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:44 PM, <mjvdwo...@netscape.net> wrote: > I second this opinion. At the end of next week our Pilatus 200K will be > delivered. Soon after that I will be able to report on its characterist > ics. > > But really, Boaz nailed it: reliability and service are very important. > It does not matter how good something is on paper if you cannot keep it > running. And with this e-mail I think it is clear what my recommendation > was to our department and I am pleased that the recommendation was > followed. Exactly as Boaz suggests, it was based in significant part on > consideration > of reliability and quality of service. It is to be noted that reliability > of instruments and quality of service could vary from region to region, > that is, good service in the US may and may not translate to good service > elsewhere. It would be good to do a "regional poll" for this. > > Having said all this, it is my impression that the newer technology has > fewer moving parts and therefore should be expected to be more reliable. > But I don't know that for sure, please ask again in 3-5 years. :-) > > Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boaz Shaanan <bshaa...@exchange.bgu.ac.il> > To: CCP4BB <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> > Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 2:53 pm > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] detectors on home sources > > One of the main things (if not THE main thing) to worry about when > investing in such expensive equipment is long-time reliability and quality > of service in your place. Nothing is more frustrating than seeing your > wonderful and expensive equipment standing idle for long periods because of > lack of service. This may mean quite often taking compromises and going > perhaps not for the front-line state-of-art piece of equipment but rather > for the sturdy, hard-working equipment. It worked for us very well. > > My 2p advice. > > Boaz > > > > *Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D. > Dept. of Life Sciences > Ben-Gurion University of the Negev > Beer-Sheva 84105 > Israel > > E-mail: bshaa...@bgu.ac.il > Phone: 972-8-647-2220 Skype: boaz.shaanan > Fax: 972-8-647-2992 or 972-8-646-1710 * > ** > ** > * > > * > ------------------------------ > *From:* CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Fareed > Aboul-Ela [faboul...@zewailcity.edu.eg] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:00 PM > *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > *Subject:* [ccp4bb] detectors on home sources > > I'm involved in advising my institute on an X-ray home source for a > core facility. The vendors are offering some new configurations. Whatever > the claimed advantages/disadvantages, I'm hesitant to make a decision > without consulting someone with direct experience with them. In > particular, has anyone had any experience with using the "photon100" CMOS > detector being offered by Bruker, or the "pilatus 200K" detector being > offered by Rigaku? I'd also appreciate hearing from anyone with experience > with the latest Bruker microfocus rotating anode generator (called the > Turbo or TXS)? > > Many thanks for sharing your experiences. > > Fareed Aboul-ela > Associate Professor > Zewail University > Zewail City of Science and Technology > Giza, Egypt > faboul...@zewailcity.edu.eg >
