[Histonet] Glass vs. Tape Coverslippers
Don.Birgerson <@t> leica-microsystems.com
Don.Birgerson <@t> leica-microsystems.com
Thu Aug 5 07:56:43 CDT 2004
Hi Deb,
Coming from a company with a large interest in microscopes, the
physics of film vs. glass would limit the use of advanced optical
techniques. Interference contrast, and plain cross polars for crystal
screening would be difficult if not impossible. The use of objectives above
the 4X and 10X would be compromised. With the optical problems of film,
Leica has waited till we could produce a glass coverslipper.
Don Birgerson
Leica Microsystems
Technical Assistance Center
Don.Birgerson <@t> Leica-Microsystems.Com
1-800-248-0123 ext 5918
WWmn916 <@t> aol.com
Sent by: To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouth cc:
western.edu Subject: [Histonet] Glass vs. Tape Coverslippers
08/04/2004 10:04 PM
Hello again,
I'm looking for opinions on the subject of glass coverslippers versus tape
coverslipping. I have the opportunity to decide on a system. My only
experience has been with tape coverslipping. I understand machines that
glass
coverslip are slower than tape systems. Is the refractive index better
with glass
coverslips under the microscope? Opinions pros/cons are appreciated.
Deb King, HT(ASCP)
Sacramento, CA
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
More information about the Histonet
mailing list