Maclab v/s BioPac
aayoung at aol.com
Sat Oct 22 17:25:04 EST 1994
In article <3483vm$8h8 at crcnis1.unl.edu>, dwoodman at unlinfo.unl.edu (david
I ran the 2nd-year med physiology laboratories in 1987-88 in Auckland, New
Zealand when we were both assessing the MacLab system, and acting as a
ß-test site for our colleagues in Dunedin (Prof Tony McKnight and his son
Michael) who developed the system.
1. The system was about a quarter of the price of the Tektronix and Grass
instruments it replaced, which included (at that time) a 2-channel scope,
4-channel chart recorder, and stimulator.
2. The system was much easier for the students to get started in, and to
understand. The systems were always scavenged by researchers for thier own
labs in the university break, and many now have purchased them in
preference to the more highly-priced "research instruments".
3. It provided them with much enhanced ability to analyze and represent
their data, as well as import "representative" data from others who had
performed the same labs.
4. The physiology departments in Auckland and Dunedin (New Zealand) would
make available, I am sure, their suites of laboratory exercises developed
for the MacLab.
I do not have enough experience with other student-compatible data
acquisition systems to be able to compare them to the MacLab, but based
upon how it simplified the lab teaching of physiology, I would have no
hesitation in recommending the MacLab to you.
More information about the Bio-soft