New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement

[Adrian Smith-6]

Hi all,

The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a  
large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)  
cellular imaging facility.

The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement  
location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the  
facility located on the 4th floor.

The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical  
microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time  
the facility is built), super-resolution.

(At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new  
technologies)

I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how  
important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -  
ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built  
building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced  
microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there  
are locations where that has been a failure or there have been  
unexpected complications etc.

All feedback gratefully received.

Regards,

Adrian Smith
Centenary Institute, Australia

[Evangelos Gatzogiannis]

  Low frequency noise (single Hertz and sub-Hertz) are frequently the
biggest pains on higher floors (swaying buildings) since damped tables and
active damping systems aren't that good at those frequencies.  
That said, I used to do Confocal on the 6th floor of an old shaky building
by a subway line (Columbia U) and now at the ground floor of a state-of-the
art Center (Harvard) and can say with some confidence that Confocal, two
photon, widefield, and other live imaging will not be affected much by being
on a higher floor.  However, for more sophisticated things (my Coherent
Synchrolock for CARS microscopy) and for metrology I would be a little
hesitant about a higher floor, that's why I can't speak much about
super-resolution.  Try to avoid long path lengths and have lasers as close
to the microscopes as possible.  Good temperature and humidity control are
more important along with clean air.  Unless you plan to do some very
sophisticated metrology, you should be ok with good optical tables.

[Timothy Feinstein]

Hi Adrian,

You might want to consider the possibility of flooding.  My experience
probably makes me a bit jaded, having rescued a confocal from indoor rain
twice while studying for my doctorate, but it strikes me as an issues that
could affect on which floor to situate a facility.  Even given that newer
buildings should have fewer problems (in theory at least...), when below
ground level you can not control the integrity of nearby water mains.

More experienced microscopists can better say whether this issue comes up
often enough to affect your planning.

Good luck and all the best,


Tim Feinstein
University of Pittsburgh

> Hi all,
>
> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a
> large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)
> cellular imaging facility.
>
> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the
> facility located on the 4th floor.
>
> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical
> microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time
> the facility is built), super-resolution.
>
> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
> technologies)
>
> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -
> ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built
> building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced
> microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there
> are locations where that has been a failure or there have been
> unexpected complications etc.
>
> All feedback gratefully received.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian Smith
> Centenary Institute, Australia
>

[Ralf Zenke]

Dear list,

For pre-observation of samples for electron microscopy we need to measure the thickness of amorphous ice (~500nm) on thin (~10nm) carbon meshes. We would like to use phase contrast (I think DIC could not be quantified in that experiment because of the homogeneous thickness of the ice layer).
Is it possible to get reliable thickness values (accuracy of ca. 50nm) out of the gray values of the camera? Reference images without ice layers can easily be aquired. Are there any effects that might corrupt the measurements? I think it's at least neccessary to have a narrowband light source.

Thanks to anyone who can give input on this!

Nice regards,

Ralf

Ralf Zenke

Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry
Core Facility
Am Klopferspitz 18
DE-82152 Martinsried near Munich
GERMANY
Phone: (+49) (89) 8578 3798
Fax: (+49) (89) 8578 2847
www.biochem.mpg.de

[Julian Smith III]

Second-floor lab here, with microscopes located less than 75m from a
mechanical room.  No unexpected complications.  No problems with our
TEM, but it's used mostly at medium magnification.  We have a pretty
stable building, but use vibration-isolation platforms in several places
where that's important (currently under our SEM and a couple of our
research microscopes).  We're about to get a platform for the confocal,
as we have our first users doing colocalization this fall, and the
non-suspended optical table with the little cone-shaped feet doesn't
provide enough isolation at the highest mag on our instrument....
I chaired the building committee, and I was sort of surprised during
design/construction that the architects seemed completely unable to
predict building vibrations.  Hallway foot traffic during class changes
turns out to be far more of a source of vibration than building mechanicals.
Julian

Adrian Smith wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a
> large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)
> cellular imaging facility.
>
> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the
> facility located on the 4th floor.
>
> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical
> microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time
> the facility is built), super-resolution.
>
> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
> technologies)
>
> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -
> ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built
> building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced
> microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there
> are locations where that has been a failure or there have been
> unexpected complications etc.
>
> All feedback gratefully received.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian Smith
> Centenary Institute, Australia
>

--
Julian P.S. Smith III
Director, Winthrop Microscopy Facility
Dept. of Biology
Winthrop University
520 Cherry Rd.
Rock Hill, SC  29733

803-323-2111 x6427 (vox)
803-323-3448 (fax)
803-524-2347 (cell)

[leoncio vergara]

Flooding ...good point.

Leoncio Vergara MD
Post Ike microscopist
Galveston-TX


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Timothy Feinstein
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement

Hi Adrian,

You might want to consider the possibility of flooding.  My experience probably makes me a bit jaded, having rescued a confocal from indoor rain twice while studying for my doctorate, but it strikes me as an issues that could affect on which floor to situate a facility.  Even given that newer buildings should have fewer problems (in theory at least...), when below ground level you can not control the integrity of nearby water mains.

More experienced microscopists can better say whether this issue comes up often enough to affect your planning.

Good luck and all the best,


Tim Feinstein
University of Pittsburgh

> Hi all,
>
> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a
> large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)
> cellular imaging facility.
>
> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the
> facility located on the 4th floor.
>
> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical
> microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time
> the facility is built), super-resolution.
>
> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
> technologies)
>
> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -
> ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built
> building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced
> microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there
> are locations where that has been a failure or there have been
> unexpected complications etc.
>
> All feedback gratefully received.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian Smith
> Centenary Institute, Australia
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/25/09 19:57:00

[Lemasters, John J.]

We routinely hang a clear plastic tarp on the ceiling over our instruments that is drained to the side so that water leaks will not damage instrumentation. This has already saved our butts once.

--
John J. Lemasters, MD, PhD
Professor and South Carolina COEE Endowed Chair
Director, Center for Cell Death, Injury and Regeneration
Departments of Pharmaceutical & Biomedical Sciences and Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Medical University of South Carolina
QF213 Quadrangle Building
280 Calhoun Street, MSC 140
Charleston, SC 29425

Office: 843-792-2153
Lab: 843-792-3530
Fax: [phone]
Email: [hidden email]


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vergara, Leoncio A.
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement

Flooding ...good point.

Leoncio Vergara MD
Post Ike microscopist
Galveston-TX


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Timothy Feinstein
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement

Hi Adrian,

You might want to consider the possibility of flooding.  My experience probably makes me a bit jaded, having rescued a confocal from indoor rain twice while studying for my doctorate, but it strikes me as an issues that could affect on which floor to situate a facility.  Even given that newer buildings should have fewer problems (in theory at least...), when below ground level you can not control the integrity of nearby water mains.

More experienced microscopists can better say whether this issue comes up often enough to affect your planning.

Good luck and all the best,


Tim Feinstein
University of Pittsburgh

> Hi all,
>
> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a
> large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)
> cellular imaging facility.
>
> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the
> facility located on the 4th floor.
>
> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical
> microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time
> the facility is built), super-resolution.
>
> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
> technologies)
>
> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -
> ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built
> building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced
> microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there
> are locations where that has been a failure or there have been
> unexpected complications etc.
>
> All feedback gratefully received.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian Smith
> Centenary Institute, Australia
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/25/09 19:57:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.31/2458 - Release Date: 10/25/09 08:10:00

[Craig Brideau]

Vibration levels can be vaguely estimated; our builders were able to
give us movement rates based on the likely deflections of the support
members of the building.  The problem is that most vibration is caused
by the activity of daily operations.  As you say, foot traffic can be
significant, and that is not something which is easy to predict.  We
went with heavy floated broadband-damped tables to try to at least
decently cover any possibility.  It seems to have worked.  Other
sources include nearby roads and highways (does a bus route go by your
building?  How about trucking?), machinery (where is the elevator and
air handler unit?), and construction.

Craig


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julian Smith III <[hidden email]>
Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: New building options - feedback request from facilities
NOT located on ground floor/basement
To: [hidden email]

[snip] I was sort of surprised during design/construction that the
architects seemed completely unable to predict building vibrations.
Hallway foot traffic during class changes turns out to be far more of
a source of vibration than building mechanicals.
Julian

[Carol Heckman]

Ralf-
There is a reference to enhanced phase contrast in a recent paper.  This might help, as the phase retardation introduced by water may be quite small.  You can find it (open source) by searching Vasiliev and "enhanced phase contrast".
Carol
Center for Microscopy & Microanalysis
Bowling Green State University
________________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ralf Zenke [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Quantification of phase contrast images

Dear list,

For pre-observation of samples for electron microscopy we need to measure the thickness of amorphous ice (~500nm) on thin (~10nm) carbon meshes. We would like to use phase contrast (I think DIC could not be quantified in that experiment because of the homogeneous thickness of the ice layer).
Is it possible to get reliable thickness values (accuracy of ca. 50nm) out of the gray values of the camera? Reference images without ice layers can easily be aquired. Are there any effects that might corrupt the measurements? I think it's at least neccessary to have a narrowband light source.

Thanks to anyone who can give input on this!

Nice regards,

Ralf


Ralf Zenke

Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry
Core Facility
Am Klopferspitz 18
DE-82152 Martinsried near Munich
GERMANY
Phone: (+49) (89) 8578 3798
Fax: (+49) (89) 8578 2847
www.biochem.mpg.de<http://www.biochem.mpg.de>

[Edelmann, Richard E. Dr.]

Having rescued various EM's, LM's, computers, etc. from 3rd and
second floor "rains"  Above ground does not get you any protection.

But Adian:  Yes, in general I have found a signifcant improvement in
vibrations on the ground or lower.  Now, I have building next door
from me that has 4 floors of parking below the "ground" floor and I
would never try to install a highend microscope lab there.

Currently, we have years of successful use on 2nd & 3rd floors BUT we
have to use vibration isolation tables - and these have solved all
our vibration problems for our LM's (Wide-filed and Confocal).

Bigger issues are HVAC and acoustic noises.  Plus, the tendency is to
have very noisey (acoustic, vibration, and electro-magnetic fields)
first in the ground floors spaces, and then secondly, in the attic
spaces.  So you really need to look at what other things will be
nearby your proposaed facility space.

And as a final note we are in the process of renovating a new
facility on the ground (literally), but this includes EM's as well as
LM's.  In a "Non-science" building - no pumps, no refrigerators, no
high-voltage power supplies, no centrifuges, no MRI's, just rocks,
pots, dried plants and stuffed animals . . .


On 26 Oct 2009 at 11:45, Vergara, Leoncio A. wrote:

> Flooding ...good point.
>
> Leoncio Vergara MD
> Post Ike microscopist
> Galveston-TX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Timothy
> Feinstein Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:20 PM To:
> [hidden email] Subject: Re: New building options -
> feedback request from facilities NOT located on ground floor/basement
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> You might want to consider the possibility of flooding.  My experience
> probably makes me a bit jaded, having rescued a confocal from indoor
> rain twice while studying for my doctorate, but it strikes me as an
> issues that could affect on which floor to situate a facility.  Even
> given that newer buildings should have fewer problems (in theory at
> least...), when below ground level you can not control the integrity
> of nearby water mains.
>
> More experienced microscopists can better say whether this issue comes
> up often enough to affect your planning.
>
> Good luck and all the best,
>
>
> Tim Feinstein
> University of Pittsburgh
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a
> > large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)
> > cellular imaging facility.
> >
> > The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
> > location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the
> > facility located on the 4th floor.
> >
> > The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical
> > microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the
> > time the facility is built), super-resolution.
> >
> > (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
> > technologies)
> >
> > I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just
> > how important it is to have such a facility on the ground
> > floor/basement - ie just how much is that a consideration in a new,
> > purpose-built building? I know of many places (here included) where
> > advanced microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to
> > hear if there are locations where that has been a failure or there
> > have been unexpected complications etc.
> >
> > All feedback gratefully received.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Adrian Smith
> > Centenary Institute, Australia
> >
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date:
> 10/25/09 19:57:00

Richard E. Edelmann, Ph.D.
Electron Microscopy Facility Director
364 Pearson Hall
Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056
Ph: 513.529.5712        Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [hidden email]
http://www.emf.muohio.edu

[Glen MacDonald-2]

It is hard to predict.  Our old MRC-1000 UV confocal was on the 7th  
floor of a building that had cable suspended floors.  An 8 inch thick  
Newport table top on solid steel legs provided very stable images.  
But, we moved it to the ground floor of an adjacent building and the  
same table allowed us to detect doors  and drawers opening and closing  
in adjacent rooms, plus footsteps in the hallway.  Air legs resolved  
the floor resonance and the fact the high pressure hot water pipes for  
building heat were bolted to the ceiling of the mechanical space in  
the basement, right under the confocal.   At least building sway is  
not an issue.

At one point, there were plans to put a light rail tunnel under our  
building.   The seismic engineers predicted that labs in our basement,  
where the floor is a concrete slab on the ground, would have serious  
vibration issues at least during construction.

right now, we are surrounded by construction of a new building .  Lab  
supplies are jiggling on the shelves because of compactors mounted on  
excavators packing fill dirt and track mounted jack hammers  doing  
demolition.   The air tables on 2 confocals and 2 widefield systems  
seem to be blocking everything, as checked by z-series and fast  
timelapse on beads.

Positive pressure filtered ventilation would keep dust from coming in  
under the doors.  Ours is allegedly filtered but a white dust keeps  
appearing in one of the imaging suites.

Regards,
Glen

Glen MacDonald
Core for Communication Research
Virginia Merrill Bloedel Hearing Research Center
Box 357923
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-7923  USA
[phone]
[hidden email]

******************************************************************************
The box said "Requires WindowsXP or better", so I bought a Macintosh.
******************************************************************************


On Oct 25, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Adrian Smith wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a  
> large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)  
> cellular imaging facility.
>
> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement  
> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the  
> facility located on the 4th floor.
>
> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical  
> microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the  
> time the facility is built), super-resolution.
>
> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new  
> technologies)
>
> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just  
> how important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/
> basement - ie just how much is that a consideration in a new,  
> purpose-built building? I know of many places (here included) where  
> advanced microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to  
> hear if there are locations where that has been a failure or there  
> have been unexpected complications etc.
>
> All feedback gratefully received.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian Smith
> Centenary Institute, Australia

[Craig Brideau]

Air tables will go a long way to damping noise.  Generally, the lower
the frequency response of the table, the better.  I remember hearing a
story about a fellow who was taking electrophysiology readings from a
patch-clamped cell when a moderate earthquake occurred.  His rig was
on a high-quality floated table.  He evacuated the building but forgot
to shut off his experiment.  When he came back he checked his data and
could see no noise from the earthquake in his readings!  This is a
severe case of course, and usually the problem is some strange motor
vibration or the like that sneaks in to the system because it happens
to match a resonant frequency of the system.  This is why a low
frequency response is good; it is less likely to find a match in the
surrounding environment.

Craig


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Glen MacDonald
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> right now, we are surrounded by construction of a new building .  Lab
> supplies are jiggling on the shelves because of compactors mounted on
> excavators packing fill dirt and track mounted jack hammers  doing
> demolition.   The air tables on 2 confocals and 2 widefield systems seem to
> be blocking everything, as checked by z-series and fast timelapse on beads.
>
> Positive pressure filtered ventilation would keep dust from coming in under
> the doors.  Ours is allegedly filtered but a white dust keeps appearing in
> one of the imaging suites.
>
> Regards,
> Glen
>
> Glen MacDonald
> Core for Communication Research
> Virginia Merrill Bloedel Hearing Research Center
> Box 357923
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA 98195-7923  USA
> [phone]
> [hidden email]
>
> ******************************************************************************
> The box said "Requires WindowsXP or better", so I bought a Macintosh.
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Adrian Smith wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a large
>> new research building which will incorporate an (optical) cellular imaging
>> facility.
>>
>> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
>> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the facility
>> located on the 4th floor.
>>
>> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical microscopes,
>> ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time the facility is
>> built), super-resolution.
>>
>> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
>> technologies)
>>
>> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
>> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement - ie
>> just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built building? I
>> know of many places (here included) where advanced microscopes are NOT on
>> the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there are locations where that has
>> been a failure or there have been unexpected complications etc.
>>
>> All feedback gratefully received.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adrian Smith
>> Centenary Institute, Australia
>

[Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t)]

Hello
I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the basement or ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and also it provides light proof if you would like to do lifetime imaging. Otherwise, you have to hang curtains, etc., to cover the light leak. First floor is ok, all other floors are not ok because of vibration of the floor if someone hammer the wall the confocal scanner will go crazy.
Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are planning to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement in another two years.
You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if it is protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc.
Hope this helps.

Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D.
Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI)
Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering
Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22904
Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab)
Fax:[phone]; Email:[hidden email]
http://www.kcci.virginia.edu
************************
Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010
http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php
*************************

> Hi all,
>
> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a
> large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)
> cellular imaging facility.
>
> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the
> facility located on the 4th floor.
>
> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical
> microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time
> the facility is built), super-resolution.
>
> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
> technologies)
>
> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -
> ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built
> building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced
> microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there
> are locations where that has been a failure or there have been
> unexpected complications etc.
>
> All feedback gratefully received.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian Smith
> Centenary Institute, Australia
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/25/09 19:57:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.31/2458 - Release Date: 10/25/09 08:10:00

[Craig Brideau]

If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room;
don't put windows in it!

Craig


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t)
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello
> I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the basement or ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and also it provides light proof if you would like to do lifetime imaging. Otherwise, you have to hang curtains, etc., to cover the light leak. First floor is ok, all other floors are not ok because of vibration of the floor if someone hammer the wall the confocal scanner will go crazy.
> Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are planning to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement in another two years.
> You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if it is protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc.
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D.
> Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI)
> Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering
> Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab)
> Fax:[phone]; Email:[hidden email]
> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu
> ************************
> Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010
> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php
> *************************
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The University with which we are affiliated is currently planning a
>> large new research building which will incorporate an (optical)
>> cellular imaging facility.
>>
>> The design brief expressed a preference for a ground floor/basement
>> location for the imaging facility but the current plans have the
>> facility located on the 4th floor.
>>
>> The plan is that the facility will house a mixture of optical
>> microscopes, ie confocal, multiphoton, widefield etc, and (by the time
>> the facility is built), super-resolution.
>>
>> (At this stage there is also plenty of room for future expansion/new
>> technologies)
>>
>> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how
>> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -
>> ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built
>> building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced
>> microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there
>> are locations where that has been a failure or there have been
>> unexpected complications etc.
>>
>> All feedback gratefully received.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adrian Smith
>> Centenary Institute, Australia
>>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/25/09 19:57:00
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.31/2458 - Release Date: 10/25/09 08:10:00
>

[Shawn Galdeen]

These comments bring up a question I've long had regarding the  
intersection between the practice of microscopy and the business of  
running an imaging facility:  Windows -- not the OS, but the objects  
themselves.

It seems to me that one way to encourage return visits to a facility  
is by providing an environment that users find inviting, or at least  
not frightening.   One easy way to do this is to have analysis areas  
or main lab spaces that are windowed.  However, every room with  
windows is one that is necessarily restricted in terms of function (as  
Craig and Ammasi mention).  While I understand that scientific  
concerns are paramount and questions of ambience should not matter,  
I've had more than one experience where users have told me that they  
would not return to a facility because it was 'too depressing'.  Some  
may argue that what is depressing is their commitment to their  
projects, but we have little choice concerning motivation.

I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to windows in a  
facility, but could some of you with more experience comment on the  
net benefit/cost?  It would help me (and hopefully others) when  
thinking about such designs in future.


Thanks,

Shawn


Shawn Galdeen, Ph.D.
Research Support Specialist
Bio-Imaging Resource Center
Rockefeller University
1230 York Ave.
New York, New York  10065
212.327.7487


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Craig Brideau wrote:

If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room;
don't put windows in it!

Craig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t)
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello
> I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the  
> basement or ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and  
> also it provides light proof if you would like to do lifetime  
> imaging. Otherwise, you have to hang curtains, etc., to cover the  
> light leak. First floor is ok, all other floors are not ok because  
> of vibration of the floor if someone hammer the wall the confocal  
> scanner will go crazy.
> Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are  
> planning to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement  
> in another two years.
> You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if  
> it is protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc.
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D.
> Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI)
> Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering
> Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab)
> Fax:[phone]; Email:[hidden email]
> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu
> ************************
> Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010
> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php
> *************************

[Craig Brideau]

We have large windows by our desks in the adjacent room, but the
windows in the imaging room itself are covered.  I'd recommend a
blacked out and windowless room for the actual microscopes, but the
analysis room with just computers and people should be bright and
spacious.  You should avoid having your microscope in the same room as
desk space and student sitting areas.  This is both for the mental
health of the workers, as well as the safety and lifespan of the
microscopes themselves (easier to keep clean and dust free in a
separate room).

Craig


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Shawn Galdeen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> These comments bring up a question I've long had regarding the intersection
> between the practice of microscopy and the business of running an imaging
> facility:  Windows -- not the OS, but the objects themselves.
>
> It seems to me that one way to encourage return visits to a facility is by
> providing an environment that users find inviting, or at least not
> frightening.   One easy way to do this is to have analysis areas or main lab
> spaces that are windowed.  However, every room with windows is one that is
> necessarily restricted in terms of function (as Craig and Ammasi mention).
>  While I understand that scientific concerns are paramount and questions of
> ambience should not matter, I've had more than one experience where users
> have told me that they would not return to a facility because it was 'too
> depressing'.  Some may argue that what is depressing is their commitment to
> their projects, but we have little choice concerning motivation.
>
> I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to windows in a facility,
> but could some of you with more experience comment on the net benefit/cost?
>  It would help me (and hopefully others) when thinking about such designs in
> future.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shawn
>
>
> Shawn Galdeen, Ph.D.
> Research Support Specialist
> Bio-Imaging Resource Center
> Rockefeller University
> 1230 York Ave.
> New York, New York  10065
> 212.327.7487
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Craig Brideau wrote:
>
> If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room;
> don't put windows in it!
>
> Craig
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t)
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>> I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the basement or
>> ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and also it provides
>> light proof if you would like to do lifetime imaging. Otherwise, you have to
>> hang curtains, etc., to cover the light leak. First floor is ok, all other
>> floors are not ok because of vibration of the floor if someone hammer the
>> wall the confocal scanner will go crazy.
>> Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are planning
>> to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement in another two
>> years.
>> You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if it is
>> protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc.
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D.
>> Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI)
>> Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering
>> Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA 22904
>> Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab)
>> Fax:[phone]; Email:[hidden email]
>> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu
>> ************************
>> Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010
>> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php
>> *************************
>

[Nobby Clark]

Hello,
we have lost our funding and must now sell our LSM510 NLO confocal. Does
anybody know anyone who wants an incredible instrument at and incredible
price . We are trying to find a home with in the next two weeks. Ite
instrument is located in Northern California and was under severice
contrcat.
Thanks again for anybodys help
Nobby





On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:24:21 -0600, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> We have large windows by our desks in the adjacent room, but the
> windows in the imaging room itself are covered.  I'd recommend a
> blacked out and windowless room for the actual microscopes, but the
> analysis room with just computers and people should be bright and
> spacious.  You should avoid having your microscope in the same room as
> desk space and student sitting areas.  This is both for the mental
> health of the workers, as well as the safety and lifespan of the
> microscopes themselves (easier to keep clean and dust free in a
> separate room).
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Shawn Galdeen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> These comments bring up a question I've long had regarding the
>> intersection
>> between the practice of microscopy and the business of running an

imaging
>> facility:  Windows -- not the OS, but the objects themselves.
>>
>> It seems to me that one way to encourage return visits to a facility is
>> by
>> providing an environment that users find inviting, or at least not
>> frightening.   One easy way to do this is to have analysis areas or
main
>> lab
>> spaces that are windowed.  However, every room with windows is one that
>> is
>> necessarily restricted in terms of function (as Craig and Ammasi
>> mention).
>>  While I understand that scientific concerns are paramount and
questions
>> of
>> ambience should not matter, I've had more than one experience where
users
>> have told me that they would not return to a facility because it was
'too
>> depressing'.  Some may argue that what is depressing is their
commitment

>> to
>> their projects, but we have little choice concerning motivation.
>>
>> I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to windows in a
>> facility,
>> but could some of you with more experience comment on the net
>> benefit/cost?
>>  It would help me (and hopefully others) when thinking about such
>> designs in
>> future.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shawn
>>
>>
>> Shawn Galdeen, Ph.D.
>> Research Support Specialist
>> Bio-Imaging Resource Center
>> Rockefeller University
>> 1230 York Ave.
>> New York, New York  10065
>> 212.327.7487
>>
>>
>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Craig Brideau wrote:
>>
>> If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room;
>> don't put windows in it!
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t)
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>> I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the basement
or

>>> ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and also it
>>> provides
>>> light proof if you would like to do lifetime imaging. Otherwise, you
>>> have to
>>> hang curtains, etc., to cover the light leak. First floor is ok, all
>>> other
>>> floors are not ok because of vibration of the floor if someone hammer
>>> the
>>> wall the confocal scanner will go crazy.
>>> Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are
>>> planning
>>> to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement in another
>>> two
>>> years.
>>> You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if it
>>> is
>>> protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc.
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D.
>>> Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI)
>>> Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering
>>> Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd
>>> University of Virginia
>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904
>>> Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab)
>>> Fax:[phone]; Email:[hidden email]
>>> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu
>>> ************************
>>> Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010
>>> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php
>>> *************************
>>

[S. Brunet]

Hi!

I recommend no windows for the microscope area.  It also helps with laser safety
regulations and maintenance.  I agree that 'office' space for analysis is better
in open areas.

One thing to consider for comfort is noise.  Auditory noise.  We have the Ar+
and the Ti:Sapph lasers sytem (as well as other instruments). The constant
noise from the fans tires people (I assume that the decibel level is fine).  If
you can find a way to put the fans elsewhere, that would make the area better.
I think some people mentioned that they put the Ar+ laser fan elsewhere and I
wish I had known that before the lab was completed.

Also, comfortable seating and a good area to organize samples.
We are in the basement.  Our floor has isolation pads built in.  I do not know
the details of the construction or design of these pads.
I second positive pressure against dust.  If you can get filters for the air
supply, even better!

Good luck!
Sophie
____________________________________________________
Sophie M. K. Brunet, Ph. D.
Research Officer
Optical Spectroscopy, Laser Systems and Applications
[hidden email]
306-966-1719 (office)   306-966-1702 (fax)
____________________________________________________
Saskatchewan Structural Sciences Centre
University of Saskatchewan
Thorvaldson Bldg.
110 Science Place
Saskatoon, Sk   S7N 5C9
____________________________________________________


Quoting Shawn Galdeen <[hidden email]>:

> These comments bring up a question I've long had regarding the
> intersection between the practice of microscopy and the business of
> running an imaging facility:  Windows -- not the OS, but the objects
> themselves.
>
> It seems to me that one way to encourage return visits to a facility
> is by providing an environment that users find inviting, or at least
> not frightening.   One easy way to do this is to have analysis areas
> or main lab spaces that are windowed.  However, every room with
> windows is one that is necessarily restricted in terms of function (as
> Craig and Ammasi mention).  While I understand that scientific
> concerns are paramount and questions of ambience should not matter,
> I've had more than one experience where users have told me that they
> would not return to a facility because it was 'too depressing'.  Some
> may argue that what is depressing is their commitment to their
> projects, but we have little choice concerning motivation.
>
> I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to windows in a
> facility, but could some of you with more experience comment on the
> net benefit/cost?  It would help me (and hopefully others) when
> thinking about such designs in future.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shawn
>
>
> Shawn Galdeen, Ph.D.
> Research Support Specialist
> Bio-Imaging Resource Center
> Rockefeller University
> 1230 York Ave.
> New York, New York  10065
> 212.327.7487
>
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Craig Brideau wrote:
>
> If you have control over the construction/renovation of the room;
> don't put windows in it!
>
> Craig
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t)
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello
> > I always prefer the basement for microscopy facility. In the
> > basement or ground floor you will not have floor vibration issue and
> > also it provides light proof if you would like to do lifetime
> > imaging. Otherwise, you have to hang curtains, etc., to cover the
> > light leak. First floor is ok, all other floors are not ok because
> > of vibration of the floor if someone hammer the wall the confocal
> > scanner will go crazy.
> > Right now our center is in the ground floor (13 years) and we are
> > planning to move to the new building ( more space!!)in the basement
> > in another two years.
> > You may miss the daylight but it's good for the microscope system if
> > it is protected well regarding all the water leaks, etc.
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D.
> > Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI)
> > Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering
> > Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd
> > University of Virginia
> > Charlottesville, VA 22904
> > Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab)
> > Fax:[phone]; Email:[hidden email]
> > http://www.kcci.virginia.edu
> > ************************
> > Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010
> > http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php
> > *************************
>

[Ian Dobbie]

Adrian Smith <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm interested to hear experiences/feedback from people about just how  
> important it is to have such a facility on the ground floor/basement -  
> ie just how much is that a consideration in a new, purpose-built  
> building? I know of many places (here included) where advanced  
> microscopes are NOT on the ground floor but I'm keen to hear if there  
> are locations where that has been a failure or there have been  
> unexpected complications etc.

We moved in to a new facility a year ago. It is in the sub basement (2
floors below ground) so I can't comment on being in higher floors,
however we have had some serious problems.

1) A plant room was right next to one of our rooms, to make matters
worse they contractors mounted air conditioning equipment onto a shared
wall. You could feel the wall vibrate. Not a good place to do single
molecule TIRF.

2) Air conditioning and temperature control. None of our 5 rooms were
properly setup with regards to temperature control. The basic fact was
the the air-con contractors didn't believe that we could really be
considering putting >10kW of heat into a single room, so they only plumb
in 3Kw of cooling. They also took short cuts and didn't factor in
independent control of multiple rooms, just controlling them in
aggregate.

Both of these issues have been corrected by retrofitting things, but at
substantial cost and lots of inconvenience.

My take home message of these things is that you really have to hammer
home the required specs with the various levels of university
administrators, architects, contractors and anyone else you can find.

Ian

[Ian Dobbie]

Craig Brideau <[hidden email]> writes:

> could see no noise from the earthquake in his readings!  This is a
> severe case of course, and usually the problem is some strange motor
> vibration or the like that sneaks in to the system because it happens
> to match a resonant frequency of the system.  This is why a low
> frequency response is good; it is less likely to find a match in the
> surrounding environment.

Optical microscope systems also tend to be very stiff at low frequencies
and so you don't have to worry about them too much. The higher
frequencies cause the problems but they are very effectively damped by a
decent vibration isolation table.

Ian