Ann: >1. The DiVa has not been installed anywhere? No, I have one (an "alpha" version). >2. Mario is comparing digital electronics (but not the DiVa itself) with >MoFlo electronics on a BD instrument. No again: we are using the DiVa itself. >3. In an earlier post Marty Bigos says he sees no significant difference >between Vantage and MoFlo optical designs. > >Starting with no.3, each laser line on the MoFlo has its own individual >optical pathway. I think Marty was referring to the ability to collect fluorescences; i.e., there's no significant difference in the emission optics in terms of capabilities. The individual excitation pathways on the MoFlo are an advantage for aligning the system for the first time (or when you have to do a major re-alignment). >In no.2 when Mario compares the electronics I assume he is only using the >BD optical sytem: See above--we are using the BD DiVa electronics. Therefore, our comparison was really of the digital DiVa electronics and the MoFlo electronics, since we were using BD benches for the excitation and emission. >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. This is the reason I was so disappointed--the MoFlo is a fine instrument, and Cytomation has done a great job of putting out this high speed multicolor sorter a few years ahead of the competition. There's no need to resort to name-calling. mr
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:20 EST