T Bannor tbannor at
Mon Nov 21 17:05:37 EST 1994

In article <39rb9b$12u at>, brazelto at
(brazelton anthony d) writes:

Fuji.  But Molecular Dynamics is far superior.  I have a Fuji.

Dear Netters,

Before I get started I will admit that I am an employee of Fuji. I will be
leaving the company shortly to pursue an opportunity elsewhere, so cut me
some slack and don't get upset if this message borders on commercial use
of this board. Since I am the representative that sold the Fuji system to
Dr. Jonathon Sweedler at the Beckman Institute, I would like first of all
to know who Tony Brazelton is.

 He doesn't have a Fuji, Dr. Sweedler does. I don't remember any Tony
Brazelton attending the demonstration or otherwise getting involved in the
decision making process. Dr. Sweedler purchased the Fuji BAS 1000 over the
Molecular Dynamics system because he primarily works with S35 and tritium.
The Fuji system is far more sensitive to these soft beta emmiting isotopes
than the MD system is. His lab also liked Fuji's Macintosh software. It is
true that MD's software does more, but in my opinion their hardware is
inferior, especially their optical system. What good is great software if
the system can't pick up low signal levels? Every time I have contacted
Dr. Sweedler's laboratory to inquire how the Fuji system is running they
tell me that they are absolutely thrilled with its performance and they
are generating data at pace that was previously impossible. In fact I'm on
the phone with the Sweedler lab as I write this, and they're not too happy
about the posting in question.   

Okay, I've had my say. Tony, why don't you elaborate on why you think
Molecular Dynamics is far superior. And feel free to E-mail me and
introduce yourself and I will make sure I stop by and introduce myself the
next time I'm at UIUC.


More information about the Methods mailing list