http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Brightness-difference-Hg-vs-LED-tp7581211p7581224.html
We actually did a lot of work on this a year or so back. Specifically
with the Lumencor Spectra X. There is a lot more power with these newer
diode sources. These numbers are using Chroma filter sets, the effort was
year on imaging danio blood flow). Essentially the folks at Chroma came
cube and a cyan/yellow/red fp cube. So as the exciter filters are part of
power meter. The open power is total light coming down the guide with no
>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>*****
>
>A quick comparison in our lab gave the following:
>
>488 nm (FITC) band of an LED-based light engine (Lumencor): 40 mW
>300 W Xenon Sutter illuminator (probably our brightest light source) with
>FITC EX filter: 70 mW
>
>both measured at the exit of the fiber or light guide.
>
>I agree that LED based light engines are probably at least as good
>(power-wise) as most lamps, plus they have other benefits. Charts such as
>the one found here should be a good guide regarding relative power:
>
>
http://lumencor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SpectraX-LE-User-Manual1.pd>f
>
>
>Julio Vazquez, PhD
>Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
>Seattle, WA 98109
>
>
http://www.fhcrc.org/en.html>
>
>
>
>On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Kurt Thorn wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>> *****
>>
>> My sense is also that the new LED sources are brighter than Hg lamps,
>>except possibly at the very brightest mercury peaks (365, 546 nm). For
>>GFP, they are for sure brighter. True LEDs have been somewhat dim in
>>the 560 nm range, which is why Lumencor uses an LED-pumped phosphor for
>>those wavelengths. This gives very bright 560 emission.
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>> On 11/5/2013 10:21 AM, Armstrong, Brian wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>>> *****
>>>
>>> Hi Phil I would say that the new LED sources and Light Engines will be
>>>brighter than mercury sources. For example I compared an Exfo to a SOLA
>>>light engine and the light engine is brighter. The new Lumen Dynamics
>>>XLED should provide much better illumination than a mercury source.
>>> Hopefully, mercury sources will soon be a thing of the past.
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Brian D Armstrong PhD
>>> Associate Research Professor
>>> Director, Light Microscopy Core
>>> Beckman Research Institute
>>> City of Hope
>>> Dept of Neuroscience
>>> 1450 E Duarte Rd
>>> Duarte, CA 91010
>>> 626-256-4673 x62872
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List
>>>[mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Philip Oshel
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:57 AM
>>> To:
[hidden email]
>>> Subject: Brightness difference Hg vs LED
>>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>>> *****
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I had this question put to me by a new faculty member, and don't have a
>>> ready answer:
>>> "Is there a ballpark percentage for how much less bright an LED vs a
>>> standard mercury lamp light?"
>>> This is for regular epifluorescence, not confocal.
>>>
>>> This is in the realm of arm-waving over a picture of beer (a good, dark
>>> stout), ignoring brands, how old the Hg bulb is, ex/em cubes, which
>>>part
>>> of the spectrum is used, and all that. Personally, I'd think the answer
>>> is more like, "Doesn't matter, the dimmer system is still too bright to
>>> use all the available light and not damage the specimen." But ... ?
>>>
>>> Phil