Question: Liq Scin Counter: Beckmann vs. Packard

Karl Fischer tyr-2 at bones.biochem.ualberta.ca
Mon Jul 1 22:42:54 EST 1996


In article <4r8r5h$fp8 at news.doit.wisc.edu>, klenchin at macc.wisc.edu (Dima
Klenchin) wrote:

> In article <drdad-0107960822200001 at 10.3.2.25>, drdad at ktc.com wrote:
> ->Hello,
> ->
> ->I am considering the purchase of a new liquid scintillation counter. I'm
> ->interested in finding out opinions from people who might have experience
> ->with the newer Beckmann or Packard models. My use will be primarily 32P
> ->counting of probes and doing wipe tests for surface contamination 
> surveys.
> ->Other scientists here will be using the instrument for tritium
> ->incorporation assays.
> 
> I've been using both in different labs, and I vote for Packard. 
> I don't really think there is any difference as far as counting
> per se is concerned. Packard, however, is  much more convienient,
> easy and flexible to use.

...while I'm on the other side of the fence - my vote goes to Beckman.
I've been using the LS 6000 TA for the past 5 years and in all that time
the unit has only gone down twice (one due to a jammed vial and one due to
a jam in the vial raiser). On both occasions, a call to Beckman's 1-800
number has brought about a technical services rep to our unit in less than
24 hours (kudos to Bill and Brian). Like Dima's description, I found the
Beckman convenient to use and program.

Cheers

Karl the hepB guy
<usual disclaimers apply>

-- 
Karl Fischer
tyr-2 at bones.biochem.ualberta.ca





More information about the Methods mailing list