Phosphorimagers...opinions on brands?

Robert Woodward c557652 at mizzou1.missouri.edu
Tue May 3 22:16:58 EST 1994


In article <Pine.3.89.9405021417.A16917-0100000 at unixg.ubc.ca> brunstei at UNIXG.UBC.CA (John Brunstein) writes:
>From: brunstei at UNIXG.UBC.CA (John Brunstein)
>Subject: Phosphorimagers...opinions on brands?
>Date: 2 May 1994 14:40:43 -0700

>Hello all!
>        We finally have the money for a phosphorimager in our 
>collectively sweaty hands and although we have seen demos of both the 
>Molecular Dynamics and Bio-Rad machines we would be interested in hearing 
>from satisfied or disatisfied users of these or other makes to help in 
>making our final choice.
>        Also, what sort of bulk storage media are people using for the 
>data files? WORM, Magneto-optical,Colorado drive, Bernouli Boxes/SyQuest 
>drives?
>        Any info on these would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks! =:^>

One thing to consider is the difference between a machine that reads the 
signal directly from the gel (or whatever) and a machine that requires a 
screen that is exposed to the gel, then scanned by the machine.  A member 
of our lab recently did some experiments that ended up with a very weak 
signal.  Thus they required a fairly long exposure to the screen (it was a 
week or two).  If this much time was spent IN THE MACHINE, or even a fraction 
of this time, it would be unavailable to others.  With a screen system, 
several experiments can be exposing at a time, then each scanned with only 
limited machine time.  This can be especially useful if several labs will use 
be using it.  

--Robert




 \/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/-\/
> Robert Woodward, c557652 at mizzou1.missouri.edu    <
| Department of Physiology, University of Missouri |
> (314) 882-5374, FAX: (314) 884-4276              < 
 /\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\-/\



More information about the Methods mailing list