FW: Deconvolve 1.42 (Components Setup now OK)
Locked
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
yes, there are all kinds of led,different wavelength, 375nm,405nm,460nm,585nm,....and the optical power is high, maybe up to 100mw. I have ever bought different leds, for a 5w blue led(460nm),the optical power is about 20mw(it is easy to adjust the power by changing the current or voltage ),the price is about 14 RMB in china (about 2 dollar).Compare with laser, the biggest problem is led's big emission angle.So it is hard to couple light to fiber or focus into one point.I tried to do it, but most of the energy lost. I think the led will replace the arc lamp in future, even the laser for confocal or laser scanning microscopy.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeremy Adler
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Yes, Eu720 seems to be on the high side, but I guess you have to consider the casette itself which has to be machined (for comparison, an empty fluorescence filter cube is several hundred $), the heatsink and the cost of assembly. Plus there must be some profit margin. I have checked the prices too - I am building my own simple LED epiilluminator (for GFP fluorescence) for our old Zeiss and the total for parts was about $100, which includes several of the LEDs that I managed to fry in the process, the constant current driver and two glass lenses. I am using the 5W Luxeon K2 LEDs and their driver so that I can use TTL to switch the light on/off (controlled by MicroManager freeware). My design was inspired by Jim Haseloff's LED cheaposcope http://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/Haseloff/imaging/cheaposcope/cheaposcope.htm Stan On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:16:55 +0100, Jeremy Adler <[hidden email]> wrote: > >re the informative posting on LEDs by Barbara Foster > >catalogue prices for LEDs seem to be very low, so how come >Cost of LED cassette: Eu720 ? >which seems to be a couple of orders of magnitude greater. > >In addition you would need to purchase several LEDs > > > > > >Jeremy Adler >Cell Biology >The Wenner-Gren Inst. >Arrhenius Laboratories E5 >Stockholm University >Stockholm 106 91 >Sweden > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Barbara Foster >Sent: Tue 06/11/2007 17:27 >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: Non-arc source for IX-81 - semi commercial > >Search the CONFOCAL archive at >http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >Dear Glen > >As a strategic consultant in microscopy, I get to see the latest >technology and there is, indeed, a great deal of flurry about LED >technology. In the summer of 2006, I had a chance to evaluate the >AFTER/FluoLED from Fraen and was very impressed with the design, ease >of use, and flexibility. I have been working on assignment with >Fraen more recently and was surprised to see how much both LED >technology and this product line had evolved. So here are >observations on both LED technology in general, and the Fraen system >in particular. > >Fraen's FluoLEDs are now available in UV (354nm), Royal blue (450nm), >Blue (480nm), Cyan (505 nm), Green (535nm) Yellow (590nm) and red >(630nm). While Fraen is a new name in the microscopy arena, most of >you already know them: they are the world's largest manufacturer of >the LEDs used for the pointers/indicators for the speedometers, gas >gauges, etc., on the dashboard of your cars. > >Until recently Fraen's AFTER/FluoLEDs were only available in >transmitted light version for upright microscopes, currently, over 17 >different models from all the major manufacturers and several of the >smaller ones. For us "old timers", transmitted light has typically >been seen as less efficient, but the superb images from FluoLED tell >a very different story: Bright features against wonderfully velvet >black background. In other words: great S/N. Fraen will be >releasing the first systems for inverted stands next month and have >begun work on an epi version as well. > >As with any technology, there is up side/down side to LEDs >The good news is the consistency, lack of fuss, and economy of >LEDs. When they are on, they are on. When they are off and you need >them on, you can turn them on immediately - no cycle time. >Also, they exhibit much less drop off over time than HBOs. That time >factor is critical. Life expectancy of an HBO is on the order of >200-300 hrs; for Fraen's LED's (I don't have figures on the others) >30,000 hrs. No error in decimal points here: you can run them 8 hrs >a day, 5 days a week, for 5 years without changing a lamp. If you >plot drop-off versus time, a 100 fold increase in time is >significant, especially for those of us doing long term experiments. >When it comes time to switch out the lamp, there is no alignment, no >disposal issue. >The economy issue is also an interesting. Fraen's European office >did the following calculations (Euros) for the LED cassette for a >standard Blue excitation kit vs. an HBO arc lamp: >Cost of LED cassette: Eu720 Cost of HBO lamp: 160 >Lifetime LED casette: 30,000hrs Lifetime HBO lamp: 300 hrs >Eu/hr LED cassette: EU 0.024 Eu/hr HBO lamp: Eu 0.53 >Assumption: if you run both systems for 2000 hrs/year >Cost of LED cassette/yr: Eu48 Cost of HBOs/year: Eu1060. >Savings, using LEDs: Eu1012 > >One more bit of good news: LEDs are also a much cooler source so >there is dramatically less photobleaching. > >The down side really isn't very down, just something to be aware of. >Because of the state of LED technology, green and yellow LEDs >generate less power so the resulting images will be somewhat less >bright than with HBO. This is not much of an issue when the >fluorescence is viewed at magnifications up to about 60x but if you >routinely use 100x objectives, you should run the test to see if it >is a problem with your particular samples. The good news is (a) for >green LEDs, research is powering ahead. Fraen expects to have new, >brighter LEDs in Feb 08. (b) For Yellow (Texas red, etc.), research >is slower. However, they also have a good news side: they exhibit >better S/N ratio, even at the lower power, than HBO. > >The FluoLED family has a number of things to recommend it: >a. They have engineered a clever "multi-cube" device so that you can >have 1 LED, 2 LEDs, or 3 LEDs and can switch conveniently from one to >b. For multi-user labs, the LED cassettes can be switched quickly and >easily. This feature reminded me of the old Reichert Polyvars, one >of my favorite microscopes, especially for teaching. The >fluorescence (and reflected light DIC and Darkfield) cubes came on >"lolly pop" sticks so that you could just slide in what you >needed. FluoLED has mimicked that flexibility with their cassette >approach. A lab can have a set of cassettes sitting in a drawer next >to the microscope or each group can have what they need in their own >area, so they can have whatever excitation/emission they need by just >plugging in their cassette and tightening the locking >screw. Immediate change out... no alignment! >c. Fraen has engineered intelligent electronics into their >controllers. Different wavelength LEDs require different amperages >to drive them. With Fraen's system, when a cassette is plugged into >position, the controller intelligently senses which LED is in the >cassette and provides the appropriate amperage, even with the 3 >cassette system. >d. The controller also allows the user to change intensity so that >you can balance different channels for optimum imaging. >e. Finally, and as a past high school teacher, I loved this one... >Fraen has engineered less expensive "baby" systems in Blue and Royal >blue, so that we can finally get fluorescence into teaching labs. > >That's the story. I hope it was helpful. I am at Neuroscience this >week and LEDs are, indeed,grabbing a lot of interest. > >Best regards, >Barbara Foster, President > >We've moved! >Microscopy/Microscopy Education >7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A >McKinney TX 75070 >P: (972)924-5310 >Skype: fostermme >W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com > > >MME is now scheduling customized, on-site courses through >December. Call us today for details. > >P. S. >Need a good general reference or light microscopy text for next >semester? Call us today to learn more about "Optimizing LIght >Microscopy". Copies still available through MME... even for >class-room lots ... and we give quantity discounts. Just call us here >in the MME office for details. > > > > > > > > > > >At 07:21 AM 11/6/2007, Gerard Whoriskey wrote: >>Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> >>Hi Glen, >>The argument for LED systems is very strong on reliability and >>costs and is continually improving with regard to performance, measured in >>choice of wavelengths and intensity. >>I assume that in your confocal set-up you are only using the mercury based >>bulb system to check and align samples and that you only need excitation >>regions that match the laser lines you are using. An LED system that you >>can switch on and off as you please is ideal for such applications and a >>very cost effective replacement to bulbs. >>Commercial bit: >>We have only recently included 445nm and 505nm options to our range. Now >>users can choose from 7 options of 400nm, 445nm, 465nm, 505nm, 525nm, >>595nm, and 635nm. >>I will contact you directly with more commercial information. >> >>Best Regards, >> >>Gerry >> >>Gerard Whoriskey >>Development Engineer >>CoolLED Ltd >>CIL House >>Charlton Road >>Andover >>Hampshire >>SP10 3JL >> >>Mob: 07789535762 >>Tel: +44 (0) 1264 321321 >>Dir: +44 (0)1264 320984 >>web site: www.coolled.com >======================================================================== |
|
|
In reply to this post by vb-2
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Hi, Vitaly
The closest one to 430nm are the 435nm and 450nm and for the 570, a 590nm cassette. Fraen actually has 7 different cassettes currently available. Best regards, Barbara We've moved! Microscopy/Microscopy Education 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A McKinney TX 75070 P: (972)924-5310 Skype: fostermme W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com MME is now scheduling customized, on-site courses through December. Call us today for details. P. S. Need a good general reference or light microscopy text for next semester? Call us today to learn more about "Optimizing LIght Microscopy". Copies still available through MME... even for class-room lots ... and we give quantity discounts. Just call us here in the MME office for details. At 08:00 AM 11/8/2007, Vitaly Boyko wrote: Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal |
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Brideau
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Ironically, Craig, that is basically what the Fraen system does.
Their intelligent electronics senses which LED cassette has been plugged
into the illuminator and automatically adjusts the amperage. Good
thinking!
Best regards, Barbara Foster We've moved! Microscopy/Microscopy Education 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A McKinney TX 75070 P: (972)924-5310 Skype: fostermme W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com MME is now scheduling customized, on-site courses through December. Call us today for details. P. S. Need a good general reference or light microscopy text for next semester? Call us today to learn more about "Optimizing LIght Microscopy". Copies still available through MME... even for class-room lots ... and we give quantity discounts. Just call us here in the MME office for details. At 10:00 AM 11/8/2007, Craig Brideau wrote: Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal While different color LEDs usually require different voltages, they tend to have similar current requirements. Why doesn't somebody just throw together a constant current source? Then it wouldn't matter what LED you plug into it as such a source intrinsically adjusts its voltage. |
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Hi all, Back to Jeremy Adler's original question - why are the cassettes so expensive and the LED modules so inexpensive... Because the manufacturers want to recover the costs of developing the turnkey systems with very advanced features. I love a good deal and a DIY project, but we all know how many hours can go into this sort of thing (electronics, optics, machining...) and that is what you pay for. Yes you also pay for "suits" to go to tradeshows, etc, and there is the "Dilbert/The Office" factor in the background, and yes they know that you will find the money to get it regardless, so there you go. But generally you will get a functional and well engineered product if you read the specs, demo actual product, and we keep these lists going to keep them honest ;-) That said, could some manufacturer step up and tell us about the "intellegent electronics" in the LED cassette? People would at least feel better justified about paying the costs if they knew the wonderous things (optical feedback stabilization? Temperature monitoring and protection/compensation?) that happen in the cassette along with the inexpensive LEDs. Cheers, Dale Barbara Foster wrote: > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Ironically, > Craig, that is basically what the Fraen system does. Their intelligent > electronics senses which LED cassette has been plugged into the > illuminator and automatically adjusts the amperage. Good thinking! > > Best regards, > Barbara Foster > > *We've moved! > *Microscopy/Microscopy Education > 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A > McKinney TX 75070 > P: (972)924-5310 > Skype: fostermme > W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com > > > <http://www.microscopyeducation.com/>MME is now scheduling customized, > on-site courses through December. Call us today for details. > > P. S. > Need a good general reference or light microscopy text for next > semester? Call us today to learn more about "Optimizing LIght > Microscopy". Copies still available through MME... even for class-room > lots ... and we give quantity discounts. Just call us here in the MME > office for details. > > At 10:00 AM 11/8/2007, Craig Brideau wrote: >> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal While >> different color LEDs usually require different voltages, they tend to >> have similar current requirements. Why doesn't somebody just throw >> together a constant current source? Then it wouldn't matter what LED >> you plug into it as such a source intrinsically adjusts its voltage. >> >> Craig >> >> >> On Nov 7, 2007 11:11 AM, Barbara Foster <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> Hi, Jeremy >> >> The price is for an LED cassette, which includes intelligent >> electronics. Since each LED requires a specific voltage to drive >> it, the ability for the system to sense which LED cassette has >> been inserted is critical, especially for 2-channel or 3-channel >> imaging. And yes, you would have to buy several LED cassettes. >> However, when you consider that the lifetime is in excess of >> 30,000 hrs (I spoke to a diagnostic company yesterday who OEMs >> this system and they told me that, in practice, it was often in >> excess of 50,000 hrs) and there is often a better S/N ratio, it's >> not a very big investment compared to a mercury arc. >> >> Hope this was helpful, >> >> Barbara Foster, President >> >> We've moved! >> Microscopy/Microscopy Education >> 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A >> McKinney TX 75070 >> P: (972)924-5310 >> Skype: fostermme >> W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com >> >> >> <http://www.microscopyeducation.com/> >> MME is now scheduling customized, on-site courses through >> December. Call us today for details. >> >> P. S. >> Need a good general reference or light microscopy text for next >> semester? Call us today to learn more about "Optimizing LIght >> Microscopy". Copies still available through MME... even for >> class-room lots ... and we give quantity discounts. Just call us >> here in the MME office for details. >> >> At 05:06 AM 11/7/2007, you wrote: >>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>> >>> >>> re the informative posting on LEDs by Barbara Foster >>> >>> catalogue prices for LEDs seem to be very low, so how come >>> Cost of LED cassette: Eu720 ? >>> which seems to be a couple of orders of magnitude greater. >>> >>> In addition you would need to purchase several LEDs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Adler >>> Cell Biology >>> The Wenner-Gren Inst. >>> Arrhenius Laboratories E5 >>> Stockholm University >>> Stockholm 106 91 >>> Sweden >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Barbara Foster >>> Sent: Tue 06/11/2007 17:27 >>> To: [hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> Subject: Re: Non-arc source for IX-81 - semi commercial >>> >>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>> >>> Dear Glen >>> >>> As a strategic consultant in microscopy, I get to see the latest >>> technology and there is, indeed, a great deal of flurry about >>> LED >>> technology. In the summer of 2006, I had a chance to >>> evaluate the >>> AFTER/FluoLED from Fraen and was very impressed with the >>> design, ease >>> of use, and flexibility. I have been working on assignment with >>> Fraen more recently and was surprised to see how much both LED >>> technology and this product line had evolved. So here are >>> observations on both LED technology in general, and the Fraen >>> system >>> in particular. >>> >>> Fraen's FluoLEDs are now available in UV (354nm), Royal blue >>> (450nm), >>> Blue (480nm), Cyan (505 nm), Green (535nm) Yellow (590nm) and >>> red >>> (630nm). While Fraen is a new name in the microscopy arena, >>> most of >>> you already know them: they are the world's largest >>> manufacturer of >>> the LEDs used for the pointers/indicators for the >>> speedometers, gas >>> gauges, etc., on the dashboard of your cars. >>> >>> Until recently Fraen's AFTER/FluoLEDs were only available in >>> transmitted light version for upright microscopes, currently, >>> over 17 >>> different models from all the major manufacturers and several >>> of the >>> smaller ones. For us "old timers", transmitted light has >>> typically >>> been seen as less efficient, but the superb images from >>> FluoLED tell >>> a very different story: Bright features against wonderfully >>> velvet >>> black background. In other words: great S/N. Fraen will be >>> releasing the first systems for inverted stands next month >>> and have >>> begun work on an epi version as well. >>> >>> As with any technology, there is up side/down side to LEDs >>> The good news is the consistency, lack of fuss, and economy of >>> LEDs. When they are on, they are on. When they are off and >>> you need >>> them on, you can turn them on immediately - no cycle time. >>> Also, they exhibit much less drop off over time than HBOs. >>> That time >>> factor is critical. Life expectancy of an HBO is on the >>> order of >>> 200-300 hrs; for Fraen's LED's (I don't have figures on the >>> others) >>> 30,000 hrs. No error in decimal points here: you can run >>> them 8 hrs >>> a day, 5 days a week, for 5 years without changing a lamp. >>> If you >>> plot drop-off versus time, a 100 fold increase in time is >>> significant, especially for those of us doing long term >>> experiments. >>> When it comes time to switch out the lamp, there is no >>> alignment, no >>> disposal issue. >>> The economy issue is also an interesting. Fraen's European >>> office >>> did the following calculations (Euros) for the LED cassette >>> for a >>> standard Blue excitation kit vs. an HBO arc lamp: >>> Cost of LED cassette: Eu720 Cost of HBO lamp: 160 >>> Lifetime LED casette: 30,000hrs Lifetime HBO lamp: 300 hrs >>> Eu/hr LED cassette: EU 0.024 Eu/hr HBO lamp: Eu 0.53 >>> Assumption: if you run both systems for 2000 hrs/year >>> Cost of LED cassette/yr: Eu48 Cost of HBOs/year: >>> Eu1060. >>> Savings, using LEDs: Eu1012 >>> >>> One more bit of good news: LEDs are also a much cooler source so >>> there is dramatically less photobleaching. >>> >>> The down side really isn't very down, just something to be >>> aware of. >>> Because of the state of LED technology, green and yellow LEDs >>> generate less power so the resulting images will be somewhat >>> less >>> bright than with HBO. This is not much of an issue when the >>> fluorescence is viewed at magnifications up to about 60x but >>> if you >>> routinely use 100x objectives, you should run the test to see >>> if it >>> is a problem with your particular samples. The good news is >>> (a) for >>> green LEDs, research is powering ahead. Fraen expects to >>> have new, >>> brighter LEDs in Feb 08. (b) For Yellow (Texas red, etc.), >>> research >>> is slower. However, they also have a good news side: they >>> exhibit >>> better S/N ratio, even at the lower power, than HBO. >>> >>> The FluoLED family has a number of things to recommend it: >>> a. They have engineered a clever "multi-cube" device so that >>> you can >>> have 1 LED, 2 LEDs, or 3 LEDs and can switch conveniently >>> from one to another >>> b. For multi-user labs, the LED cassettes can be switched >>> quickly and >>> easily. This feature reminded me of the old Reichert >>> Polyvars, one >>> of my favorite microscopes, especially for teaching. The >>> fluorescence (and reflected light DIC and Darkfield) cubes >>> came on >>> "lolly pop" sticks so that you could just slide in what you >>> needed. FluoLED has mimicked that flexibility with their >>> cassette >>> approach. A lab can have a set of cassettes sitting in a >>> drawer next >>> to the microscope or each group can have what they need in >>> their own >>> area, so they can have whatever excitation/emission they need >>> by just >>> plugging in their cassette and tightening the locking >>> screw. Immediate change out... no alignment! >>> c. Fraen has engineered intelligent electronics into their >>> controllers. Different wavelength LEDs require different >>> amperages >>> to drive them. With Fraen's system, when a cassette is >>> plugged into >>> position, the controller intelligently senses which LED is in >>> the >>> cassette and provides the appropriate amperage, even with the 3 >>> cassette system. >>> d. The controller also allows the user to change intensity so >>> that >>> you can balance different channels for optimum imaging. >>> e. Finally, and as a past high school teacher, I loved this >>> one... >>> Fraen has engineered less expensive "baby" systems in Blue >>> and Royal >>> blue, so that we can finally get fluorescence into teaching labs. >>> >>> That's the story. I hope it was helpful. I am at >>> Neuroscience this >>> week and LEDs are, indeed,grabbing a lot of interest. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Barbara Foster, President >>> >>> We've moved! >>> Microscopy/Microscopy Education >>> 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A >>> McKinney TX 75070 >>> P: (972)924-5310 >>> Skype: fostermme >>> W: www.MicroscopyEducation.com >>> <http://www.microscopyeducation.com/> >>> >>> >>> MME is now scheduling customized, on-site courses through >>> December. Call us today for details. >>> >>> P. S. >>> Need a good general reference or light microscopy text for next >>> semester? Call us today to learn more about "Optimizing LIght >>> Microscopy". Copies still available through MME... even for >>> class-room lots ... and we give quantity discounts. Just call >>> us here >>> in the MME office for details. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> At 07:21 AM 11/6/2007, Gerard Whoriskey wrote: >>> >Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>> > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>> > >>> >Hi Glen, >>> >The argument for LED systems is very strong on reliability >>> and operational >>> >costs and is continually improving with regard to >>> performance, measured in >>> >choice of wavelengths and intensity. >>> >I assume that in your confocal set-up you are only using the >>> mercury based >>> >bulb system to check and align samples and that you only >>> need excitation >>> >regions that match the laser lines you are using. An LED >>> system that you >>> >can switch on and off as you please is ideal for such >>> applications and a >>> >very cost effective replacement to bulbs. >>> >Commercial bit: >>> >We have only recently included 445nm and 505nm options to >>> our range. Now >>> >users can choose from 7 options of 400nm, 445nm, 465nm, >>> 505nm, 525nm, >>> >595nm, and 635nm. >>> >I will contact you directly with more commercial information. >>> > >>> >Best Regards, >>> > >>> >Gerry >>> > >>> >Gerard Whoriskey >>> >Development Engineer >>> >CoolLED Ltd >>> >CIL House >>> >Charlton Road >>> >Andover >>> >Hampshire >>> >SP10 3JL >>> > >>> >Mob: 07789535762 >>> >Tel: +44 (0) 1264 321321 >>> >Dir: +44 (0)1264 320984 >>> >web site: www.coolled.com <http://www.coolled.com/> >> |
|
|
In reply to this post by zhanTom
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >Search the CONFOCAL archive at >http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >yes, there are all kinds of led,different wavelength, >375nm,405nm,460nm,585nm,....and the optical power is high, maybe up >to 100mw. I have ever bought different leds, for a 5w blue >led(460nm),the optical power is about 20mw(it is easy to adjust the >power by changing the current or voltage ),the price is about 14 RMB >in china (about 2 dollar).Compare with laser, the biggest problem is >led's big emission angle.So it is hard to couple light to fiber or >focus into one point.I tried to do it, but most of the energy lost. >I think the led will replace the arc lamp in future, even the laser >for confocal or laser scanning microscopy. Hi all, I think that LED light sources are a very important development in fluorescence microscopy but the post above is the first one to really talk about the optics of the system and the limits that this places on the excitation intensity. As LEDs are NOT as bright as arcs, the optics used to convey their output to the focus plane become very important. Although this topic is covered in some detail in Chapters 6 and 10 of the Handbook, the main points are: 1. The intensity at the specimen can never be higher than that of the source and is usually much less (It depends on the NA of the collector and objective lenses, the total magnification of the image of the source, and secondarily on reflection losses and the fact that few sources are planar.). 2. If you want intensity uniformity, you use Kohler illumination, but you can get more brightness if you focus the source onto the part of the specimen that you wish to illuminate ("critical illumination") and this will work well if the source brightness is uniform. LEDs seem to be relatively uniform in brightness especially if their output has been scrambled by passage through an optical fiber. 3. As the brightest image of the source, will occur when the image of the source is the same size as the source (Assuming a fixed NA of the collector and objective lenses. You can change the total mag of the optics to make the image of the source larger or smaller, but this necessarily changes the relative EFFECTIVE NAs of the collector and objective lenses.) 4. If you are working at high imaging magnification, (i.e., small field, say 150 micrometers diam) then the source need only be uniform over a similar area (assuming that all the optics including the objective give 1:1 imaging, not common, but used here just as an example). 5. A corollary here is that, if LEDs with higher power are also larger, the increased number of photons they produce won't help you because you cannot force them to fit into a fixed field of view on the specimen. They have more photons, but not more (and perhaps less) photons/micrometer squared 6. If you are working at lower imaging magnification, then your field of view will be larger and you will able to focus more of the light from a larger LED onto the part of the specimen that you are imaging. This is why normal WF fluorescence can sometimes look much brighter with lower mag objectives. Since the Handbook came out a number of companies have jumped into the field. Choosing among them will be greatly assisted if they can tell us something of the optical system they employ (Kohler or critical?, will both aperture and field diaphragms operate properly etc.), and the number of mW of light, with a given spectral distribution, that they can deliver to a circle of the specimen, say, 100 micrometers in diameter (The size of this circle should be adjustable using the epi-illumination field diaphragm, and is important because with a source of given brightness, it should be possible to put 4x more photons through a 200 micrometer circle than through one of 100 micrometers. This will be true as long as the size of the illuminated field does not exceed the field of view of the objective lens.) Please help us all by asking the manufacturers for this information. Two other points: Because the spectral distribution of the light emitted by LEDs has tails on it, one usually still needs to use excitation filters unless the Stokes shift of the dye is large. As white LEDs are really only blue LEDs covered with a phosphor that converts some of the blue light into red and green light, they are intrinsically less "bright" in a given waveband than "colored" LEDs. Cheers, Jim P;. -- ********************************************** Prof. James B. Pawley, Ph. 608-263-3147 Room 223, Zoology Research Building, FAX 608-265-5315 1117 Johnson Ave., Madison, WI, 53706 [hidden email] 3D Microscopy of Living Cells Course, June 14-26, 2008, UBC, Vancouver Canada Info: http://www.3dcourse.ubc.ca/ Applications due by March 15, 2008 "If it ain't diffraction, it must be statistics." Anon. |
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
You're absolutely
right Jim.
We are pleased
to confirm that the OptoLED is capable of
rapid switching; in fact this was a fundamental
design requirement. The illumination
can be controlled digitally with switching
times of less than 100 nanoseconds, via an
analogue control voltage with a response
time of less than 10 microseconds, or by
any combination thereof. There is also
the option of optical feedback to stabilise
the light output. This can be useful
either for pulsed illumination (where consequent
unavoidable temperature fluctuations within
the LED chip can otherwise affect the light
output) or for for long term measurements
extending over hours or days. The protection
circuitry allows transient overdriving when
pulsed illumination is used. The LEDs
are individually mounted in interchangeable
heads that attach directly to the microscope
for maximum optcal coupling efficiency. This
also provides a simple upgrade path as (even)
brighter LEDs become available. The system is highly modular and supports simultaneous illumination at multiple wavelengths using interchangeable beamsplitter cubes. A single OptoLED power supply can also be used for brightfield and epifluorescence illumination.
http://mail.cairn-research.co.uk/Downloads/Cairn%20Product%20Datasheets
>Search the CONFOCAL
archive at
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> >>yes, there are all kinds of led,different wavelength, >>375nm,405nm,460nm,585nm,....and the optical power is high, maybe up >>to 100mw. I have ever bought different leds, for a 5w blue >>led(460nm),the optical power is about 20mw(it is easy to adjust the >>power by changing the current or voltage ),the price is about 14 RMB >>in china (about 2 dollar).Compare with laser, the biggest problem is >>led's big emission angle.So it is hard to couple light to fiber or >>focus into one point.I tried to do it, but most of the energy lost. >>I think the led will replace the arc lamp in future, even the laser >>for confocal or laser scanning microscopy. >Hi all, >I think that LED light sources are a very important development in >fluorescence microscopy but the post above is the first one to really >talk about the optics of the system and the limits that this places >on the excitation intensity. >As LEDs are NOT as bright as arcs, the optics used to convey their >output to the focus plane become very important. >Although this topic is covered in some detail in Chapters 6 and 10 of >the Handbook, the main points are: >1. The intensity at the specimen can never be higher than that of the >source and is usually much less (It depends on the NA of the >collector and objective lenses, the total magnification of the image >of the source, and secondarily on reflection losses and the fact that >few sources are planar.). >2. If you want intensity uniformity, you use Kohler illumination, but >you can get more brightness if you focus the source onto the part of >the specimen that you wish to illuminate ("critical illumination") >and this will work well if the source brightness is uniform. LEDs >seem to be relatively uniform in brightness especially if their >output has been scrambled by passage through an optical fiber. >3. As the brightest image of the source, will occur when the image of >the source is the same size as the source (Assuming a fixed NA of the >collector and objective lenses. You can change the total mag of the >optics to make the image of the source larger or smaller, but this >necessarily changes the relative EFFECTIVE NAs of the collector and >objective lenses.) >4. If you are working at high imaging magnification, (i.e., small >field, say 150 micrometers diam) then the source need only be uniform >over a similar area (assuming that all the optics including the >objective give 1:1 imaging, not common, but used here just as an >example). >5. A corollary here is that, if LEDs with higher power are also >larger, the increased number of photons they produce won't help you >because you cannot force them to fit into a fixed field of view on >the specimen. They have more photons, but not more (and perhaps less) >photons/micrometer squared >6. If you are working at lower imaging magnification, then your field >of view will be larger and you will able to focus more of the light >from a larger LED onto the part of the specimen that you are imaging. >This is why normal WF fluorescence can sometimes look much brighter >with lower mag objectives. >Since the Handbook came out a number of companies have jumped into >the field. Choosing among them will be greatly assisted if they can >tell us something of the optical system they employ (Kohler or >critical?, will both aperture and field diaphragms operate properly >etc.), and the number of mW of light, with a given spectral >distribution, that they can deliver to a circle of the specimen, say, >100 micrometers in diameter (The size of this circle should be >adjustable using the epi-illumination field diaphragm, and is >important because with a source of given brightness, it should be >possible to put 4x more photons through a 200 micrometer circle than >through one of 100 micrometers. This will be true as long as the size >of the illuminated field does not exceed the field of view of the >objective lens.) >Please help us all by asking the manufacturers for this information. >Two other points: Because the spectral distribution of the light >emitted by LEDs has tails on it, one usually still needs to use >excitation filters unless the Stokes shift of the dye is large. As >white LEDs are really only blue LEDs covered with a phosphor that >converts some of the blue light into red and green light, they are >intrinsically less "bright" in a given waveband than "colored" LEDs. >Cheers, >Jim P;. >-- > ********************************************** >Prof. James B. Pawley, Ph. 608-263-3147 >Room 223, Zoology Research Building, >FAX 608-265-5315 >1117 Johnson Ave., Madison, WI, 53706 [hidden email] >3D Microscopy of Living Cells Course, June 14-26, 2008, UBC, Vancouver Canada >Info: http://www.3dcourse.ubc.ca/ Applications due by March 15, 2008 > "If it ain't diffraction, it must be statistics." Anon. ----------------------- Original
Message -----------------------
From: James Pawley [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:25:04
-0600
Subject: Re: LED price ?
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >Search the CONFOCAL archive at >http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >yes, there are all kinds of led,different wavelength, >375nm,405nm,460nm,585nm,....and the optical power is high, maybe up >to 100mw. I have ever bought different leds, for a 5w blue >led(460nm),the optical power is about 20mw(it is easy to adjust the >power by changing the current or voltage ),the price is about 14 RMB >in china (about 2 dollar).Compare with laser, the biggest problem is >led's big emission angle.So it is hard to couple light to fiber or >focus into one point.I tried to do it, but most of the energy lost. >I think the led will replace the arc lamp in future, even the laser >for confocal or laser scanning microscopy. Hi all, I think that LED light sources are a very important development in fluorescence microscopy but the post above is the first one to really talk about the optics of the system and the limits that this places on the excitation intensity. As LEDs are NOT as bright as arcs, the optics used to convey their output to the focus plane become very important. Although this topic is covered in some detail in Chapters 6 and 10 of the Handbook, the main points are: 1. The intensity at the specimen can never be higher than that of the source and is usually much less (It depends on the NA of the collector and objective lenses, the total magnification of the image of the source, and secondarily on reflection losses and the fact that few sources are planar.). 2. If you want intensity uniformity, you use Kohler illumination, but you can get more brightness if you focus the source onto the part of the specimen that you wish to illuminate ("critical illumination") and this will work well if the source brightness is uniform. LEDs seem to be relatively uniform in brightness especially if their output has been scrambled by passage through an optical fiber. 3. As the brightest image of the source, will occur when the image of the source is the same size as the source (Assuming a fixed NA of the collector and objective lenses. You can change the total mag of the optics to make the image of the source larger or smaller, but this necessarily changes the relative EFFECTIVE NAs of the collector and objective lenses.) 4. If you are working at high imaging magnification, (i.e., small field, say 150 micrometers diam) then the source need only be uniform over a similar area (assuming that all the optics including the objective give 1:1 imaging, not common, but used here just as an example). 5. A corollary here is that, if LEDs with higher power are also larger, the increased number of photons they produce won't help you because you cannot force them to fit into a fixed field of view on the specimen. They have more photons, but not more (and perhaps less) photons/micrometer squared 6. If you are working at lower imaging magnification, then your field of view will be larger and you will able to focus more of the light from a larger LED onto the part of the specimen that you are imaging. This is why normal WF fluorescence can sometimes look much brighter with lower mag objectives. Since the Handbook came out a number of companies have jumped into the field. Choosing among them will be greatly assisted if they can tell us something of the optical system they employ (Kohler or critical?, will both aperture and field diaphragms operate properly etc.), and the number of mW of light, with a given spectral distribution, that they can deliver to a circle of the specimen, say, 100 micrometers in diameter (The size of this circle should be adjustable using the epi-illumination field diaphragm, and is important because with a source of given brightness, it should be possible to put 4x more photons through a 200 micrometer circle than through one of 100 micrometers. This will be true as long as the size of the illuminated field does not exceed the field of view of the objective lens.) Please help us all by asking the manufacturers for this information. Two other points: Because the spectral distribution of the light emitted by LEDs has tails on it, one usually still needs to use excitation filters unless the Stokes shift of the dye is large. As white LEDs are really only blue LEDs covered with a phosphor that converts some of the blue light into red and green light, they are intrinsically less "bright" in a given waveband than "colored" LEDs. Cheers, Jim P;. -- ********************************************** Prof. James B. Pawley, Ph. 608-263-3147 Room 223, Zoology Research Building, FAX 608-265-5315 1117 Johnson Ave., Madison, WI, 53706 [hidden email] 3D Microscopy of Living Cells Course, June 14-26, 2008, UBC, Vancouver Canada Info: http://www.3dcourse.ubc.ca/ Applications due by March 15, 2008 "If it ain't diffraction, it must be statistics." Anon. |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Pawley
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
You're absolutely right Jim.
We are pleased to confirm that the OptoLED is capable of rapid switching; in fact this was a fundamental design requirement. The illumination can be controlled digitally with switching times of less than 100 nanoseconds, via an analogue control voltage with a response time of less than 10 microseconds, or by any combination thereof. There is also the option of optical feedback to stabilise the light output. This can be useful either for pulsed illumination (where consequent unavoidable temperature fluctuations within the LED chip can otherwise affect the light output) or for for long term measurements extending over hours or days. The protection circuitry allows transient overdriving when pulsed illumination is used. The LEDs are individually mounted in interchangeable heads that, as mentioned, attach directly to the microscope for maximum optcal coupling efficiency. This also provides a simple upgrade path as (even) brighter LEDs become available.
The system is highly modular and supports simultaneous illumination at multiple wavelengths using interchangeable beamsplitter cubes. A single OptoLED power supply can also be used for brightfield and epifluorescence illumination.
http://mail.cairn-research.co.uk/Downloads/Cairn%20Product%20Datasheets
With our regards from Cairn Research Ltd Sales &
Marketing Manager >Search the CONFOCAL
archive at
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> >>yes, there are all kinds of led,different wavelength, >>375nm,405nm,460nm,585nm,....and the optical power is high, maybe up >>to 100mw. I have ever bought different leds, for a 5w blue >>led(460nm),the optical power is about 20mw(it is easy to adjust the >>power by changing the current or voltage ),the price is about 14 RMB >>in china (about 2 dollar).Compare with laser, the biggest problem is >>led's big emission angle.So it is hard to couple light to fiber or >>focus into one point.I tried to do it, but most of the energy lost. >>I think the led will replace the arc lamp in future, even the laser >>for confocal or laser scanning microscopy. >Hi all, >I think that LED light sources are a very important development in >fluorescence microscopy but the post above is the first one to really >talk about the optics of the system and the limits that this places >on the excitation intensity. >As LEDs are NOT as bright as arcs, the optics used to convey their >output to the focus plane become very important. >Although this topic is covered in some detail in Chapters 6 and 10 of >the Handbook, the main points are: >1. The intensity at the specimen can never be higher than that of the >source and is usually much less (It depends on the NA of the >collector and objective lenses, the total magnification of the image >of the source, and secondarily on reflection losses and the fact that >few sources are planar.). >2. If you want intensity uniformity, you use Kohler illumination, but >you can get more brightness if you focus the source onto the part of >the specimen that you wish to illuminate ("critical illumination") >and this will work well if the source brightness is uniform. LEDs >seem to be relatively uniform in brightness especially if their >output has been scrambled by passage through an optical fiber. >3. As the brightest image of the source, will occur when the image of >the source is the same size as the source (Assuming a fixed NA of the >collector and objective lenses. You can change the total mag of the >optics to make the image of the source larger or smaller, but this >necessarily changes the relative EFFECTIVE NAs of the collector and >objective lenses.) >4. If you are working at high imaging magnification, (i.e., small >field, say 150 micrometers diam) then the source need only be uniform >over a similar area (assuming that all the optics including the >objective give 1:1 imaging, not common, but used here just as an >example). >5. A corollary here is that, if LEDs with higher power are also >larger, the increased number of photons they produce won't help you >because you cannot force them to fit into a fixed field of view on >the specimen. They have more photons, but not more (and perhaps less) >photons/micrometer squared >6. If you are working at lower imaging magnification, then your field >of view will be larger and you will able to focus more of the light >from a larger LED onto the part of the specimen that you are imaging. >This is why normal WF fluorescence can sometimes look much brighter >with lower mag objectives. >Since the Handbook came out a number of companies have jumped into >the field. Choosing among them will be greatly assisted if they can >tell us something of the optical system they employ (Kohler or >critical?, will both aperture and field diaphragms operate properly >etc.), and the number of mW of light, with a given spectral >distribution, that they can deliver to a circle of the specimen, say, >100 micrometers in diameter (The size of this circle should be >adjustable using the epi-illumination field diaphragm, and is >important because with a source of given brightness, it should be >possible to put 4x more photons through a 200 micrometer circle than >through one of 100 micrometers. This will be true as long as the size >of the illuminated field does not exceed the field of view of the >objective lens.) >Please help us all by asking the manufacturers for this information. >Two other points: Because the spectral distribution of the light >emitted by LEDs has tails on it, one usually still needs to use >excitation filters unless the Stokes shift of the dye is large. As >white LEDs are really only blue LEDs covered with a phosphor that >converts some of the blue light into red and green light, they are >intrinsically less "bright" in a given waveband than "colored" LEDs. >Cheers, >Jim P;. >-- > ********************************************** >Prof. James B. Pawley, Ph. 608-263-3147 >Room 223, Zoology Research Building, >FAX 608-265-5315 >1117 Johnson Ave., Madison, WI, 53706 [hidden email] >3D Microscopy of Living Cells Course, June 14-26, 2008, UBC, Vancouver Canada >Info: http://www.3dcourse.ubc.ca/ Applications due by March 15, 2008 > "If it ain't diffraction, it must be statistics." Anon. ----------------------- Original
Message -----------------------
From: James Pawley [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:25:04
-0600
Subject: Re: LED price ?
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >Search the CONFOCAL archive at >http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >yes, there are all kinds of led,different wavelength, >375nm,405nm,460nm,585nm,....and the optical power is high, maybe up >to 100mw. I have ever bought different leds, for a 5w blue >led(460nm),the optical power is about 20mw(it is easy to adjust the >power by changing the current or voltage ),the price is about 14 RMB >in china (about 2 dollar).Compare with laser, the biggest problem is >led's big emission angle.So it is hard to couple light to fiber or >focus into one point.I tried to do it, but most of the energy lost. >I think the led will replace the arc lamp in future, even the laser >for confocal or laser scanning microscopy. Hi all, I think that LED light sources are a very important development in fluorescence microscopy but the post above is the first one to really talk about the optics of the system and the limits that this places on the excitation intensity. As LEDs are NOT as bright as arcs, the optics used to convey their output to the focus plane become very important. Although this topic is covered in some detail in Chapters 6 and 10 of the Handbook, the main points are: 1. The intensity at the specimen can never be higher than that of the source and is usually much less (It depends on the NA of the collector and objective lenses, the total magnification of the image of the source, and secondarily on reflection losses and the fact that few sources are planar.). 2. If you want intensity uniformity, you use Kohler illumination, but you can get more brightness if you focus the source onto the part of the specimen that you wish to illuminate ("critical illumination") and this will work well if the source brightness is uniform. LEDs seem to be relatively uniform in brightness especially if their output has been scrambled by passage through an optical fiber. 3. As the brightest image of the source, will occur when the image of the source is the same size as the source (Assuming a fixed NA of the collector and objective lenses. You can change the total mag of the optics to make the image of the source larger or smaller, but this necessarily changes the relative EFFECTIVE NAs of the collector and objective lenses.) 4. If you are working at high imaging magnification, (i.e., small field, say 150 micrometers diam) then the source need only be uniform over a similar area (assuming that all the optics including the objective give 1:1 imaging, not common, but used here just as an example). 5. A corollary here is that, if LEDs with higher power are also larger, the increased number of photons they produce won't help you because you cannot force them to fit into a fixed field of view on the specimen. They have more photons, but not more (and perhaps less) photons/micrometer squared 6. If you are working at lower imaging magnification, then your field of view will be larger and you will able to focus more of the light from a larger LED onto the part of the specimen that you are imaging. This is why normal WF fluorescence can sometimes look much brighter with lower mag objectives. Since the Handbook came out a number of companies have jumped into the field. Choosing among them will be greatly assisted if they can tell us something of the optical system they employ (Kohler or critical?, will both aperture and field diaphragms operate properly etc.), and the number of mW of light, with a given spectral distribution, that they can deliver to a circle of the specimen, say, 100 micrometers in diameter (The size of this circle should be adjustable using the epi-illumination field diaphragm, and is important because with a source of given brightness, it should be possible to put 4x more photons through a 200 micrometer circle than through one of 100 micrometers. This will be true as long as the size of the illuminated field does not exceed the field of view of the objective lens.) Please help us all by asking the manufacturers for this information. Two other points: Because the spectral distribution of the light emitted by LEDs has tails on it, one usually still needs to use excitation filters unless the Stokes shift of the dye is large. As white LEDs are really only blue LEDs covered with a phosphor that converts some of the blue light into red and green light, they are intrinsically less "bright" in a given waveband than "colored" LEDs. Cheers, Jim P;. -- ********************************************** Prof. James B. Pawley, Ph. 608-263-3147 Room 223, Zoology Research Building, FAX 608-265-5315 1117 Johnson Ave., Madison, WI, 53706 [hidden email] 3D Microscopy of Living Cells Course, June 14-26, 2008, UBC, Vancouver Canada Info: http://www.3dcourse.ubc.ca/ Applications due by March 15, 2008 "If it ain't diffraction, it must be statistics." Anon. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeremy Adler
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
In response to Dale's comments, I would like to support his statements about the real costs associated with developing, marketing and building product which HAS to perform as described. Regarding the source of these costs, the information below goes some way to explain what goes into a productionised LED source. Some products have a single interchangeable LED wavelength. CoolLED uses three interchangeable LED wavelengths mounted in its precisExcite LED fluorescence source. These LEDs are in the form of LED Array Modules (LAMs) - which can be up to 96 LEDs built on a single module. We package these LEDs ourselves in order to achieve optimum thermal control and coupling to the light-guide. The cost of the bare LED semiconductor material is trivial. The cost of manufacture is high, requiring expensive high-tolerance capital equipment and quality control procedures. We guarantee that these LEDs will last for over 10,000 hours / 3 years of actual use - although we expect they will last indefinitely for many users, as they only need to be switched on for the amount of time you would have the shutter open using a bulb system.
To guarantee this
lifetime, we have to build and test extensively before we know that we have a
stable high-power LED array. In addition, we use active temperature
control (Peltier) to ensure that the LEDs are always operating within their
defined parameters. LEDs are considered "efficient" but still produce at
least 70% heat so cooling is essential. When the LAMs are interchanged,
the system has been designed to recognise, through software on the LAM, which
wavelength has been installed and reset the optimal operating parameters in
the main unit. So, there are
design costs, material costs, assembly costs, manufacturing equipment costs,
testing costs, engineering personnel costs and, yes, inevitably the cost of
a few "suits". If you measure the value the product provides to your
research, by making available a stable, fast-switching, repeatable light-source
with no bulbs to replace and align every few weeks or months, you can decide if
it is worthwhile for you. JIM
Beacher CoolLED/
precisExcite
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |