Heliophor

[Deepak Saini]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi,

I am planning to buy a long life light source (10,000 hours or longer) for
epifluorescence microscopy. I am exploring the following options
1. LED light source like CoolLED - life time 15,000 hrs
2. Plasma light source like Sutter XL - 10,000 hrs
3. Heliophor from 89north - 50,000 hrs
4. Sola/ Spectra from Lumercor - 10 - 20,000 hours lifetime.

Is there any information comparing these sources except from the vendors.
I will really appreciate information if anyone can comment on the comparison
of intensity of these light sources. I have personally checked CoolLED and
found their intensity at 100% output was comparable to 10% output from a
200W metal halide source when imaging GFP in live cells. My interest is in
live imaging applications for which I have to leave the light source running
for extended durations of time.

Please suggest.

Thanks,

Deepak.

[George McNamara]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Deepak,

If you are investing in a new light source, you may also need to invest
in optimized filters or filter sets for your microscope. This could be
part of the explanation for the intensity difference between the CoolLED
and metal halide lamp. In the case of LED's, assuming the lamp
manufacturer keeps up with the intensity increases of LEDs (think:
Moore's law, but applied to LEDs instead of CPU's and RAM) if you wait a
year, the LED's will increase in brightness. My only experience with
LED's was a Zeiss Colibri demo a couple of years ago - with respect to
intensity, it performed similarly to my FluoArc Hg lamp for DAPI, green
and red fluorescence (my recollection is it came with a triple pass
filter for the scope, so could switch excitation wavelengths without the
delay of changing cubes ... I recall that in single cube mode, the
Colibri was about as bright through my scopes single pass cubes).

While higher brightness is nice, it is also a a great way to kill cells
and fluorophores. A better test for your application would be: how long
can you keep your cells alive and fluorescing with each lamp?

Another variable to evaluate is how stable is each light source? The
FluoArc I have has an intensity control - I use 20% for "idle" between
sessions, and 100% for tytpical image acquisition. For timelapse
fluorescence experiments I typically set the intensity to 50%, since
that is the lowest I can go with "reasonable" stability. That is, 20%
intensity clearly flickers by eye but since we are not using it for
acquisition, doesn't matter (by "idling" between sessions I often get
over 1,000 hours total lifetime from the FluoArc Hg bulbs ... probably
also helps that I scrub them with a 70% EtOH soaked kimwipe [wearing
gloves] before using the bulb ... my thanks to John Zhang of Leica for
this tip).

Another variable in comparing 'remote' lamps - an old or abused liquid
light guide will not transmit as much light as a new LLG. A 1 meter LLG
will transmit more light than a 2 meter. Incorrect positioning of the
LLG on either end will affect intensity and uniformity.

George


On 5/19/2012 3:13 AM, Deepak Saini wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi,
>
> I am planning to buy a long life light source (10,000 hours or longer) for
> epifluorescence microscopy. I am exploring the following options
> 1. LED light source like CoolLED - life time 15,000 hrs
> 2. Plasma light source like Sutter XL - 10,000 hrs
> 3. Heliophor from 89north - 50,000 hrs
> 4. Sola/ Spectra from Lumercor - 10 - 20,000 hours lifetime.
>
> Is there any information comparing these sources except from the vendors.
> I will really appreciate information if anyone can comment on the comparison
> of intensity of these light sources. I have personally checked CoolLED and
> found their intensity at 100% output was comparable to 10% output from a
> 200W metal halide source when imaging GFP in live cells. My interest is in
> live imaging applications for which I have to leave the light source running
> for extended durations of time.
>
> Please suggest.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Deepak.
>
>    

[Gerard Whoriskey]

**Commercial Interest**

After contacting Deepak about his comments and test setup we feel it is important to point out the CoolLED system he tested is around 4 years old. We expect significantly better results today against typical metal halide bulbs. Independent tests from last year showed us to be around 50% of a leading 200W metal halide bulb in the blue region. These bulb systems can vary a lot though and I have personally seen our LED system beat the intensity of another popular metal halide system in the blue.  
As George McNamara pointed out intensity of LEDs are always increasing. This is especially true of the blue region, used for the excitation of GFP, as this region forms the basis of the LED white lighting industry where there is much effort and investment going into improving power.
Intensity comparisons can be tricky and with LEDs the filter set choices are critical.
We think LEDs are the ideal source for live cell work. One fundamental advantage being that they can be controlled from imaging software to only come on when the camera is exposing. Working in this way makes lifetime comparisons with bulbs meaningless. We have also heard much user experience of reduced bleaching and improved cell viability with LED sources. I think this is generally accepted to be down to the lack of deep UV and IR from LED sources that can get through filter sets. It would be great if someone done a scientific study on this. We would happily support with loan kit. Please let us know if this has been done.

Best Regards,

Gerry

Gerard Whoriskey

Development Engineer

Email:  [hidden email]
Tel:  [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Deepak Saini
Sent: 19 May 2012 08:13
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Heliophor

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi,

I am planning to buy a long life light source (10,000 hours or longer) for epifluorescence microscopy. I am exploring the following options 1. LED light source like CoolLED - life time 15,000 hrs 2. Plasma light source like Sutter XL - 10,000 hrs 3. Heliophor from 89north - 50,000 hrs 4. Sola/ Spectra from Lumercor - 10 - 20,000 hours lifetime.

Is there any information comparing these sources except from the vendors.
I will really appreciate information if anyone can comment on the comparison of intensity of these light sources. I have personally checked CoolLED and found their intensity at 100% output was comparable to 10% output from a 200W metal halide source when imaging GFP in live cells. My interest is in live imaging applications for which I have to leave the light source running for extended durations of time.

Please suggest.

Thanks,

Deepak.
This message has been scanned by MailController - portal2.mailcontroller.co.uk

This message has been scanned by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com

This message and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, in whole or in part, is prohibited. E-mails are subject to possible alteration. Custom Interconnect Ltd and the sender decline any liability if this message and/or any attachments have been altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender immediately.

CoolLED Ltd is a limited company registered in England. Registered number: 7654232. Registered office: CIL House 48 Charlton road Andover, Hampshire United Kingdom SP103JP.

[Krishanu Ray]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Dear Gerry,

I had purchased a CoolLED system four years back and never managed to
use it for the following reasons: 1) the blue illumination is very low
and could only be used for exceptionally bright GFP preparations, 2)
there was no software patch available to adapt it with the ScopePro
(IPP) or micromanager, 3) the LEDs failed after a few hundred hours of
use and we found out that they are quite expensive to replace as
compared to the metal halide.  Therefore, we have switched back to the
old ways with the metal halide and since then my students stopped
complaining!

I thought that I would share this with all of you so that all the
promised advantages of the LEDs are actually realized.

cheers!

krishanu.

On 5/21/2012 5:26 PM, Gerard Whoriskey wrote:

> **Commercial Interest**
>
> After contacting Deepak about his comments and test setup we feel it is important to point out the CoolLED system he tested is around 4 years old. We expect significantly better results today against typical metal halide bulbs. Independent tests from last year showed us to be around 50% of a leading 200W metal halide bulb in the blue region. These bulb systems can vary a lot though and I have personally seen our LED system beat the intensity of another popular metal halide system in the blue.
> As George McNamara pointed out intensity of LEDs are always increasing. This is especially true of the blue region, used for the excitation of GFP, as this region forms the basis of the LED white lighting industry where there is much effort and investment going into improving power.
> Intensity comparisons can be tricky and with LEDs the filter set choices are critical.
> We think LEDs are the ideal source for live cell work. One fundamental advantage being that they can be controlled from imaging software to only come on when the camera is exposing. Working in this way makes lifetime comparisons with bulbs meaningless. We have also heard much user experience of reduced bleaching and improved cell viability with LED sources. I think this is generally accepted to be down to the lack of deep UV and IR from LED sources that can get through filter sets. It would be great if someone done a scientific study on this. We would happily support with loan kit. Please let us know if this has been done.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gerry
>
> Gerard Whoriskey
>
> Development Engineer
>
> Email:  [hidden email]
> Tel:  [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Deepak Saini
> Sent: 19 May 2012 08:13
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Heliophor
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi,
>
> I am planning to buy a long life light source (10,000 hours or longer) for epifluorescence microscopy. I am exploring the following options 1. LED light source like CoolLED - life time 15,000 hrs 2. Plasma light source like Sutter XL - 10,000 hrs 3. Heliophor from 89north - 50,000 hrs 4. Sola/ Spectra from Lumercor - 10 - 20,000 hours lifetime.
>
> Is there any information comparing these sources except from the vendors.
> I will really appreciate information if anyone can comment on the comparison of intensity of these light sources. I have personally checked CoolLED and found their intensity at 100% output was comparable to 10% output from a 200W metal halide source when imaging GFP in live cells. My interest is in live imaging applications for which I have to leave the light source running for extended durations of time.
>
> Please suggest.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Deepak.
> This message has been scanned by MailController - portal2.mailcontroller.co.uk
>
> This message has been scanned by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com
>
> This message and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, in whole or in part, is prohibited. E-mails are subject to possible alteration. Custom Interconnect Ltd and the sender decline any liability if this message and/or any attachments have been altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender immediately.
>
> CoolLED Ltd is a limited company registered in England. Registered number: 7654232. Registered office: CIL House 48 Charlton road Andover, Hampshire United Kingdom SP103JP.
>

--
Krishanu Ray,
Department of Biolgical Sciences,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Mumbai 400005, India.
Phone: [phone] (O)

[Kavita Aswani-2]

***COMMERCIAL RESPONSE****



Dear Microscopists,

I am sorry to read below some negative perceptions of LEDs.  It is true that when LEDs were launched, power was low and that left a lot of early adopters of this technology with a bad perception.  Since then, LED technology has moved leaps and bounds to a point where they are perfectly usable for most applications that use HBO/mercury lamps (even lasers in some cases).

The X-Cite XLED1 offers 11 high-power LED modules which can be easily swapped out in a lab, with a 20,000 hour (or 3 year) warranty on the life of the LED.  Our blue module is the brightest available, our switching speed is unmatched, and we have drivers for most of the popular software suites.   I don't want to make this a sales pitch, you can find more details at http://www.ldgi-xcite.com/products-xcite-xled1.php



The real question to determine lamp vs. LED is the application - LEDs (depending on the wavelength) will not be as bright as lamp, but do you ever use 100% power of your lamp? - depending on the application, maybe you do not have an issue with photobleaching- if it is live cell, chances are you are not using even close to 100% of your lamp unless you are trying to kill cells or perform FRAP.

We have an article coming out in the July Issue of Microscopy Today entitled " Fluorescence Microscopy Light Sources" which will hopefully assist users in making their decision about lamps vs. LED.  There is also a webinar on this subject at http://www.ldgi-xcite.com/news-webinars.php



Please feel free to contact me here or offline if you have any further questions.



Regards,

Kavita



Dr. Kavita Aswani, PhD

Senior Applications Scientist - Life Sciences



LUMEN DYNAMICS GROUP INC.

2260 Argentia Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5N 6H7

Direct Tel: [phone] |  Cell: 647 290-3506 | Toll Free: (USA and Canada): 1 800 668-8752

Email: [hidden email] |  Website: www.LDGI.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Krishanu Ray
Sent: May-21-12 8:22 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Heliophor



*****

To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:

http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy

*****



Dear Gerry,



I had purchased a CoolLED system four years back and never managed to

use it for the following reasons: 1) the blue illumination is very low

and could only be used for exceptionally bright GFP preparations, 2)

there was no software patch available to adapt it with the ScopePro

(IPP) or micromanager, 3) the LEDs failed after a few hundred hours of

use and we found out that they are quite expensive to replace as

compared to the metal halide.  Therefore, we have switched back to the

old ways with the metal halide and since then my students stopped

complaining!



I thought that I would share this with all of you so that all the

promised advantages of the LEDs are actually realized.



cheers!



krishanu.



On 5/21/2012 5:26 PM, Gerard Whoriskey wrote:

> **Commercial Interest**

>

> After contacting Deepak about his comments and test setup we feel it is important to point out the CoolLED system he tested is around 4 years old. We expect significantly better results today against typical metal halide bulbs. Independent tests from last year showed us to be around 50% of a leading 200W metal halide bulb in the blue region. These bulb systems can vary a lot though and I have personally seen our LED system beat the intensity of another popular metal halide system in the blue.

> As George McNamara pointed out intensity of LEDs are always increasing. This is especially true of the blue region, used for the excitation of GFP, as this region forms the basis of the LED white lighting industry where there is much effort and investment going into improving power.

> Intensity comparisons can be tricky and with LEDs the filter set choices are critical.

> We think LEDs are the ideal source for live cell work. One fundamental advantage being that they can be controlled from imaging software to only come on when the camera is exposing. Working in this way makes lifetime comparisons with bulbs meaningless. We have also heard much user experience of reduced bleaching and improved cell viability with LED sources. I think this is generally accepted to be down to the lack of deep UV and IR from LED sources that can get through filter sets. It would be great if someone done a scientific study on this. We would happily support with loan kit. Please let us know if this has been done.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Gerry

>

> Gerard Whoriskey

>

> Development Engineer

>

> Email:  [hidden email]

> Tel:  [phone]

> Fax: [phone]

> Mobile: [phone]

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Deepak Saini

> Sent: 19 May 2012 08:13

> To: [hidden email]

> Subject: Heliophor

>

> *****

> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:

> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy

> *****

>

> Hi,

>

> I am planning to buy a long life light source (10,000 hours or longer) for epifluorescence microscopy. I am exploring the following options 1. LED light source like CoolLED - life time 15,000 hrs 2. Plasma light source like Sutter XL - 10,000 hrs 3. Heliophor from 89north - 50,000 hrs 4. Sola/ Spectra from Lumercor - 10 - 20,000 hours lifetime.

>

> Is there any information comparing these sources except from the vendors.

> I will really appreciate information if anyone can comment on the comparison of intensity of these light sources. I have personally checked CoolLED and found their intensity at 100% output was comparable to 10% output from a 200W metal halide source when imaging GFP in live cells. My interest is in live imaging applications for which I have to leave the light source running for extended durations of time.

>

> Please suggest.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Deepak.

> This message has been scanned by MailController - portal2.mailcontroller.co.uk

>

> This message has been scanned by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com

>

> This message and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, in whole or in part, is prohibited. E-mails are subject to possible alteration. Custom Interconnect Ltd and the sender decline any liability if this message and/or any attachments have been altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender immediately.

>

> CoolLED Ltd is a limited company registered in England. Registered number: 7654232. Registered office: CIL House 48 Charlton road Andover, Hampshire United Kingdom SP103JP.

>





--

Krishanu Ray,

Department of Biolgical Sciences,

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,

Mumbai 400005, India.

Phone: [phone] (O)

Think Green Before You Print!

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately, and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.