Hi Christine
As Nagarajan mentioned, we do have a "UV Pen" that we offer at a reasonably
modest price.
However we have not been promoting it because we've been struggling to find
a camera that we can recommend to use with it.
We use it with an old Russian microscope (normal glass optics) and a c
Would be curious to know the current limitations on UV microscopy employed
for screening protein crystals - such as content of aromatic amino acids,
protein size etc.
Cheers,
Shiva
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Klaus Fütterer wrote:
> From the experience when our (commercial) UV imaging syst
Typically, what you image is Trp fluorescence by exciting at around 280 nm
and observing at around 350 nm. Standard silicon based detectors do fine at
the detection wavelength, although, as you can imagine, increased
sensitivity in the UV means increase in the price of the detector. If your
excitat
A "real" UV microscope requires quartz optics, right?
Probably conventional microscopes use glass.
And you can't see 280 nm (and its not good for your eyes)
so you need some kind of phosphor screen to view the image?
Bosch, Juergen wrote:
I'm replying here to myself :-)
So in an off-board discu
I'm replying here to myself :-)
So in an off-board discussion it turns out that the "microscope" in question
was a special emitted light and not a UV microscope. So real UV microscopes
might be better for the purpose of detecting real crystals.
Sorry for the confusion - had too much sun today :
Quoting Ed Pozharski :
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 20:50 +0100, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:
Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing
microscopes.
Do you by any chance know the price? I can seemingly "order" it through
the website for the hefty price of $0.00, which is too good
I once tested such a commercial system in Seattle about 4 years ago. It did not
impress me. In particular the discrimination between salt and protein did not
work for about 10 different proteins from which we already had collected data.
sure those were small between 10 and 100 micrometer. Excuse
A while ago I was trying to be cheap, so we played around with it quite
a bit in the lab. After rediscovering some of the basics of
signal-to-noise and microscope transmission efficiency and that sort of
rot, I realised that the commercial systems may not be all that
ridiculously overpriced af
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 20:50 +0100, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:
> Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing
> microscopes.
Do you by any chance know the price? I can seemingly "order" it through
the website for the hefty price of $0.00, which is too good to be true.
--
"Hurry
Quoting "Harman, Christine" :
Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is
possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)
so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I
want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does
I'm not going to respond to the larger group, but I know one can buy LEDs
that emit strongly at 280 nm, which would give tryptophan fluorescence.
They're about $200, and one could build or buy a control circuit for not
much more. I think this is about what the commercial tools do. You'd
want
Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is possible to adapt
a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model) so as to view protein
crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I want a cheap manual version of what
a Rock UV Imager does. I know this is probably a crazy d
12 matches
Mail list logo
