Thanks to all who generously shared your experiences with Pilatus and CMOS detectors with me, both on and offline. I’ve compiled the online responses here, but given that the vast majority of the responses were offline I’ll attempt to briefly summarize what I learned.
First no one has had either of these detectors at their home source for a very long time (> ~1 year). But, the good news is that there are no complaints so far. In fact, I only received positive reports from users of both detectors, especially the Pilatus. One caution, though, none of the Pilatus users have yet used the version (200K) which Rigaku are now offering as standard on their instruments. There is skepticism about whether advantages in sensitivity and dynamic range for the Pilatus will be noticeable in a home source. Rather, the beam intensity may be the limiting factor even for some of the microfocus rotating anode sources. Another point was raised about the large pixel size. There is a gap in the detector and one user suggested that a triple axis goniometer may be necessary to generate the redundancy to compensate. Agilent have a poster which I’m sure they will be happy to share showing sensitivity on their ATLAS CCD superior to that of a CMOS detector. Nonetheless, those with experience using either Photon-100 or Pilatus 200k detectors at home were very happy with the shutter-less data collection. Another advantage is that the currently offered versions of these detectors do not require cooling water. So, with respect to maintenance both seem to be easier that CCD detectors. So, overall it’s early days and there is skepticism, but, so far the actual users seem to have no complaints. We still haven’t found anyone who has used the Bruker TXS microfocus rotating anode at home. I think we’re going to have to find forums for small molecule crystallographers. Many thanks again. Fareed Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 16:04:56 +0200 From: Dworkowski Florian <florian.dworkow...@psi.ch> Subject: Re: detectors on home sources I can not really speak for a home-source setup, but here at the SLS MX group we run two Pilatus6M (one of which is the first Pilatus ever made) and one Pilatus2M. In nearly four years since we installed the first one we never had any hardware issue other than users damaging the case. So I'd say the reliability of the DECTRIS detectors is excellent. Cheers, Florian ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Scherrer Institut Dr. Florian Dworkowski Beamline Scientist X10SA Swiss Light Source WSLA/219 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland Phone +41 56 310 3584 Fax +41 56 310 5292 florian.dworkow...@psi.ch http://www.psi.ch/macromolecular-crystallography <blocked::http://www.psi.ch/macromolecular-crystallography> 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 >
