Posts tagged with equipment

0 comments

December 30, 2011

Optics Planet and Braintree Scientific and New Era syringe pumps: Inexpensive scientific equipment

Optics Planet has a nice selection of inexpensive microscopes and other lab equipment. Such as these chubby, potential Cute Overload stars from Nikon (above, the blue one that is taking a bow is $380).

Braintree Scientific also has a really nice selection of reasonably priced equipment. Tons of very interesting, unique products. Get the catalog and flip through it– the website isn’t so nice to browse. They do custom work too, in case you have something specific in mind. One of their new products is a netbook+syringe pump package, pictured below:

I recognize the syringe pump as one of New Era’s OEM pumps. New Era sells all kinds of syringe pumps, from barebones OEM devices ($500, controlled via RS-232), to digital ($750) and multi-syringe units ($1500). You can use one of the OEM units for things like delivering water rewards in behavior rigs.

0 comments

November 27, 2011

Thorlabs’ B-scope

Thorlabs’ scope pieces and kits have been mentioned in these pages before. At SfN, they had their new B-scope on display. This is like the Sutter MOM and the UCLA scope, in that the microscope rotates in one plane in addition to x-y-z movement. A few differences with the Thorlabs scope:

1. The objective rotates around the focal plane, and the rotation is motorized.
With the Sutter/UCLA style scopes, the objective rotates about an axis along the scan path, so the focus point changes a ton when rotating. The rotation can really only be changed before there is a prep on there, because the objective swings a big arc whenever the rotation changes and it ends up pointing at a completely different point in space.

By contrast, the Thorlabs scope is set up to rotate about an axis that is in the plane of focus. So you can be looking at a cell and then, while imaging, rotate the scope (since it’s motorized) and still keep looking at the same thing, just from a different angle.

This is why they have the crazy periscope you can see to the right in the photo below.

I remember seeing a scope with this same feature (rotation around an axis in the image plane) at a conference at least 2 years ago. I think it was a group based out of Switzerland. Can anyone fill in the details for me?

2. No conventional scanners, just the Thorlabs conventional scanners.
This might not be true for long. Thorlabs has their own conventional scanners, but they’re not as fast as Cambridge Technologies (CTI) scanners. This is probably why they opted to put their resonant scanners in the system.

I’m guessing that they’ll help out buyers if they want to fit the scope with a set of conventional scanners from CTI. I say this because Thorlabs told more than one person at SfN that they would help them fit the Thorlabs resonant scanner kit to their Sutter MOM scope. This was news to Sutter.

0 comments

November 9, 2011

Sensapex piezo manipulators

Sensapex is the new kid on the block for micromanipulators, and theirs have an ultra small footprint with 20mm of travel on 3 axes. Here are some pictures of one of the first production runs:

To change pipettes, the manipulators have a tilt-back action.

The tilt-back action should help conserve space in crowded setups, but the arc might not be clear. Some sort of sliding back and/or twisting motion might be needed.

They’re very small. Check out the Axon headstage next to them.

It’s really built to be a pipette holder-type manipulator rather than a larger, headstage holder-type manipulator. They have magnetic and bolt-on headstage mounting options for Axon, Heka, and npi.

They have a “high load” version that should handle 200g (the MultiClamp headstage is about 90g). So it should be possible to mount about any headstage directly on the manipulator. Having the headstage too far away from the pipette can cause noise problems, so this might be what people want to look for.

Here’s the controller:

They’re also considering releasing the user interface as open source. This is from Mikko, the CEO:

We are using PC-software in the R&D and testing, but we don’t yet have computer interface for the customers. We have had some requests for it though so it is in our R&D plan. However, we are happy to provide drivers, function calls etc. if someone wants to implement control to their existing software (Matlab, C or Labview based). I’ve been thinking of going for the open-source approach for the user-interface software.

0 comments

October 3, 2011

Osmometer tech – Vapor or Freezing point?

I’ve used Wescor Vapro osmometers for a long time. Specifically, the model pictured above. They’re nice machines. But now I think freezing point osmometers are better. In this post I’ll talk about why.

The Wescor Vapro machines are the only game in town when it comes to vapor pressure osmometers (due to patent issues). It used to be that freezing point osmometers were priced 30% or more over their vapor pressure cousins. This let the Wescor machines take over significant market share. However, recently that price gap has narrowed. This is the new Wescor.

The technology is the same. But now they’ve added more consumables (and more stuff that can break). Wescor also informed me that they’ve redesigned the thermocouple enough (even though the tech and specs are the same) that they are going to stop supporting the older model and will not sell replacement parts in the future.

With that in mind, the relative merits of the two technologies should be re-evaluated.

1. Freezing point osmometers offer more reproducible and reliable measurements
Vapro machines have to coddled in order to be reliable. Daily recalibration is common. They’re very sensitive to ambient temperature and humidity. By contrast, freezing point osmometers are tanks. Their measuring mechanism is pretty violent compared to vapor pressure osmometers (there’s a loud bang when a measurement is made), but the signal to noise is so high that they still nail their measurements under challenging conditions. The freezing point measurement is simply more robust and higher signal-to-noise than the vapor pressure measurement.

Check out this machine. It looks WWII surplus. But you can yank it out of deep storage, run three 290 mosm standards in series, and it nails 290 all three times. It’s the Jeep of osmometers.

2. Less maintenance
I haven’t much experience with freezing point osmometers, so for the comparison I’m relying on the testimony of my colleagues. But as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I have a lot of experience with the Wescor Vapro. Cleaning the thermocouple, replacing the thermocouple, sending it back to the factory for repair… the machines I’ve used have needed all of this. The freezing point machines need maintenance, but it’s markedly less than the Vapros.

3. Wescor isn’t what it used to be
EliTech bought Wescor in 2007. So Wescor, naturally, is not the same company.

If freezing point osmometers are better than vapor point osmometers, why did all the labs I trained in have the vapor point osmometers. One reason: price. Vapor point osmometers used to be 30% cheaper. But now they’re not. And given the advantages of freezing point osmometers, it’s worth reconsidering.

The Fiske, above, is great, but a bit loud even when in standby. This one’s quieter.

5 comments

September 28, 2011

DIY Heat pad

More cleverness from Taro Ishikawa. Instead of buying a homeothermic heating pad for surgeries (these often cost > $1000), Taro used some basic industrial process control items. He bought his stuff in Japan, but similar items are available from McMaster-Carr in the US.

Part 1
A Precision Programmable Temperature PID Controller, about $200 (shown at top of post)
(Example McMaster-Carr item: 38615K71)
This connects to a temperature probe and a heating element to maintain a pre-set temperature. They’re built with fairly robust feedback algorithms and logic to maximize stability.

Part 2
A temperature probe, about $20
(Example McMaster-Carr item: 9251T91)
Pretty basic.

Part 3
A heating pad, about $50
These are available in a variety of sizes.
(Example McMaster-Carr item: 35475K722)

Just make sure all the parts are electrically compatible. Depending on which ones you select, you may also need a power supply. (The standard Labrigger disclaimer applies.)

3 comments

September 27, 2011

DIY Picospritzer

I was in Tokyo recently and stopped by my friend Taro Ishikawa’s lab (of TaroTools fame). He and Misa are doing very well. They have exciting work underway and are expanding their lab. Taro’s a resourceful, clever guy and while I was there I saw some more of his handiwork. Instead of buying a Picospritzer (which costs $1500-$3000, the NPI PDES system is less expensive, but still in the 4 digits), Taro hooked a regulator (above) directly to an electric valve (below) and called it a day. The valve is actuated by a TTL pulse, and the regulator sets the pressure. Simple, elegant, saves space, and saves money.

0 comments

June 18, 2011

OpenMoCo for motion control

OpenMoCo is short for “Open Motion Control”. The community is focussed on building rigs for moving cameras.

They have great, detailed, accessible articles on different topics including gearing, motors, and their own software and hardware. They also list several good hardware sources.

It is maybe not a replacement for pipette micromanipulators. However, for stages, microscope platforms, and motorized mechanisms in behavior rigs, this could be a great resource for a custom made solutions.

The have forums too. It’s not the most active community, but it seems to have a steady pace. And perhaps if they broadened their scope a bit, there would be an increase in activity. The infrastructure itself seems very general. Here’s a diagram:

(via)

0 comments

April 19, 2011

MakerBeam: cheap construction rails

A while back Labrigger covered some sources for alternative mechanics. Here’s a new one. MakerBeam is an inexpensive kit of construction rails aka T-slot bars. This would be a great thing to keep around the lab to construct various riggings. A $130 kit from SparkFun gets you all this:

  • 4x – 30cm beam
  • 8x – 20cm beam
  • 6x – 15cm beam
  • 16x – 10cm beam
  • 8x – 6cm beam
  • 8x – 4cm beam
  • 12x – outside corner bracket
  • 12x – 45 degree bracket
  • 12x – 60 degree bracket
  • 24x – 90 degree bracket
  • 1x – bag of bolts
  • 1x – bag of nuts

    • The MakerBeam system’s best feature may be that the angle brackets are labeled with their angle in turns, a somewhat less used unit than degrees or radians. It doesn’t really matter (1 turn = 360 degrees, obviously), but it quickly ignited an impassioned discussion in the comments of the product page.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    Haha, oh open source. Only you would do something helpful like engrave the angle in each bracket, but render it useless by using some obscure unit…

    (via)
    More Optomechanics Resources

    1 comments

    April 14, 2011

    Test slides

    Let me tell you a little story.

    The place is the CONFOCALMICROSCOPY listserv.
    The time is 1997.

    A query asks how to mount fluorescent beads from Molecular Probes in order to image them without a refractive index mismatch problem. A helpful response informed:

    The real deal is that all ‘scope manufacturers assume a couple of things.

    1. The refractive index of the immersion oil is 1.515 ( be aware RI changes
    w/ temp)

    2. The cover slip is .17 microns #1 1/2

    3. The subject is the back ( side away from the objective) of the coverslip.

    4. The immersion media of the subject is normally water ( some mfgs. choose
    other RI’s.

    Fastforward to 2005.

    Molecular Probes (MP aka Invitrogen) posts to the listserv to advertise their new FocalCheck products, which are fluorescent beads pre-mounted on slides.

    This was the swift response from the listserv community:

    Why are the beads not mounted with a 1.5 coverslip (0.17mm)? Microscopes are designed for that thickness and there will be significant spherical aberration with a #1 coverslip (especially with a high dry objective).

    Fastforward again to 2010.

    A query complains of not being able to focus on the beads in a FocalCheck slide from Molecular Probes.

    They have sent me another one and I’m having the same trouble focusing.

    A Molecular Probes rep suggests that the user buy the beads and mount them to a coverslip themselves:

    You may want to consider buying and mounting the desired stand alone beads directly onto a coverslip for the immediate future (cheaper than a new objective!).

    You know what else is cheaper than a new objective? Properly manufactured FocalCheck slides.

    At this point, Paul Herzmark pitched in:

    Invitrogen has known that they make their bead test slides wrong since at least July 2005. I copy below an email exchange I had with the company.

    The original poster doubted that the coverslip thickness was the problem. Guy Cox chimed in:

    No, no, it IS the problem! As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put the beads on the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the coverslip. If you are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the coverslip. With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of the mountant needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip – #1 or #0 – which must be found by trial and error.

    A flurry of comments came in, including this one:

    They sell these “test slides” for hundreds of dollars, yet they don’t take the time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct coverslips chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on the glass slide… I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much does it cost them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe…

    Fastforward to now. Molecular Probes happily reports that they now make the test slides correctly.

    We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted TetraSpeck beads products described in this colorful email string from over a year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).

    TetraSpeck beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the slides.

    It took some doing – overspray from the mask used to find the bead focal plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so much. Many apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder. But the product, T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size bead series, F36909, are now on the coverslip.

    Great!
    (BTW, I corrected their spelling of “TetraSpeck”, which apparently is the current marketing incarnation of FocalCheck.)

    In addition to beads, there are a couple of other test slides I like to have handy.

    Fluorescent plastic slides

    These are handy for alignment. They also give a great impression of uniformity over the field of view.

    We got a kit from Chroma a long time ago. I’m not sure if they still sell them, but any fluorescent plastic will work, so you can make your own. Perhaps engineering samples from a company (for example), or repurposing a bit of found fluorescent plastic.

    Biological sample slides

    Mixed pollen grains are a favorite (example source), but really, any sample will do. Something with some high resolution features.

    0 comments

    April 10, 2011

    Wireless

    I recently returned from my private island in the Maldives. Like most of the inhabited islands, it has no physical links to other islands at all. It is only about 250 meters in diameter, so there isn’t much room for infrastructure. The island has its own desalination plant for water, an incinerator for waste disposal, a diesel generator for power, and daily boat shipments for food and supplies, including barrels of fuel for the generator. All telephone and internet connections are via satellite and radio, courtesy of a small tower in the center of the island. The tower needn’t be very tall, because there aren’t many structures over 10 meters in the middle of the Indian Ocean, as we are, and the next cell tower isn’t typically more than 20-30 miles away.

    So the topic of this post is getting rid of physical links in rigs: wireless technology. Here are some quick ways to decrease the number of cables on your rig, including some custom solutions.

    Wireless keyboard and mouse

    An obvious place to start, there are many options. I prefer ones with batteries for two reasons: (1) charging cradles often fail to reliably make good electrical contact with the battery connectors, and (2) there is no emergency solution when the battery goes down to zero. By the way, for cases where I don’t need to do much typing at a computer– just enter a few commands once in a while– I like the small, Bluetooth Logitech DiNovo Mini keyboards for reducing clutter around the rig.

    Monitor connection

    WiDi isn’t quite prime time yet. But it’s available in some laptops. Hopefully there will be solutions for desktop computers soon. Wireless HDMI is another option to look at as well.

    Network connection

    If there isn’t a need to move large amounts of data to and from the net, then just put a wireless card in the computer and get rid of that cable.

    Custom electronics

    It’s never been easier to make your own wireless connections for your custom electronics. Here are some platforms to consider:

    ZigBee/XBee

    SparkFun, Adafruit, and other companies sell inexpensive kits and Arduino shields for the ZigBee specification. This is an RF-based (2.4 GHz), open protocol. Since it’s a mesh architecture, it’s perfect for implementations with several units, for example, a whole room full of behavior boxes.

    Bluetooth

    Bluetooth is the more widely known, and perhaps slightly more expensive, PAN. Again, many companies sell kits for it (e.g., SparkFun). Again, it is a 2.4 GHz RF-based protocol. It can be useful because many laptops, and even some desktop computer, already have Bluetooth modems installed, thus simplifying the implementation.

    Nordic

    The strength of Nordic’s system is ultra low power usage. It’s less popular for custom electronics than the two other RF-based solutions I mentioned above, but there are still kits available (e.g., SparkFun).

    Infrared

    For applications which might be sensitive to RF radiation, infrared wireless communication is a nice option. It’s basically line of sight, of course, so it’s more limited than RF, but it won’t interfere with most instrumentation. Even most imaging rigs should be fine around it. IRDA specifications are the most standard ones. However, if you don’t have a lot of data to transmit, and just want to send some simple commands, you can roll your own code pretty easily. This can be dirt cheap too, if you’re building off of some simple microcontrollers such as the Arduino. All you need are IR detectors (e.g., RadioShack) and IR LEDs (e.g., RadioShack), both of which are cheap. For example, to turn on a circuit could be a 700 ms pulse of IR, and to turn off a circuit could be a 250 ms pulse, and all the slave with the IR detector needs to do is to measure the pulse length.

    « Older Entries