>Thank you all for the very informative discussion on electronics and also >the info on DiVa specs. > >This is a response to a few enquiries from this side of the ocean in which >it was mistakenly understood that the DiVa was being compared to the MoFlo: > >My understanding is as follows: > >1. The DiVa has not been installed anywhere? > >2. Mario is comparing digital electronics (but not the DiVa itself) with >MoFlo electronics on a BD instrument. > >3. In an earlier post Marty Bigos says he sees no significant difference >between Vantage and MoFlo optical designs. Hi Ann - Although I could have stated it clearer, what was referred to was the light collection/measuring system. Although the geometries are slightly different, I have not seen a significant difference in collection efficiency between a MoFlo bench and a BD bench. > > >Starting with no.3, each laser line on the MoFlo has its own individual >optical pathway. That's correct. This does make alignment of the MoFlo bench easier (one of the advantages of the MoFlo that I mentioned) than the BD bench. It also allows for individual focusing and beam shaping of each laser. I believe Cytomation has used this to narrow the heights of each laser-jet intercept to approximately 20 microns to reduce the pulse width of the measured signals to enhance the sort speed (Matt O., if you are reading this, correct me if I am wrong!). > >In no.2 when Mario compares the electronics I assume he is only using the >BD optical sytem: > >As for no.1, good luck to the first customer and keep us informed. > >I got that postcard ad today: the only problem I see is that Cytomation >will have to live up to its' claims. Although I am a very satisfied MoFlo >user I wouldn't mind seeing all that is being claimed on that postcard >being demonstrated at the next user's meeting preferably with HeLa cells. > >exquisitely >Ann -- Marty Gladstone Institutes Flow Core mbigos@gladstone.ucsf.edu 695-3832
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:57:40 EST