Re: More on A.pellucida
- From: "gto" <gregor_o@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 05:40:04 GMT
As Gary clearly showed with his images, one should use SEM for AP. Regarding resolving AP with LM, what has been achieved at the beginning of last century is all we will be able to resolve using LM until someone comes up with a greatly improved LM setup. (Well, I am not considering recent progress in looking at self-luminous particles at the moment.) The good old times proofs once again to be a great source for knowledge ;-)
But, as usual, you are correct. DIC is not the best choice for AP. COL is the champ. DF is recommended. With lambda = 420nm, one should be able to resolve AP with almost any reasonable scope and a decent DF condenser. (Of course, both oiled to the slide.)
Another question, do you use a water immersion lens? If yes, do you have the one that works with a coverglass or without? If I remember correctly, you use a LOMO at home and a Zeiss at work. - I am looking for one for my Ortholux.
Cheers,
Gregor
"rene" <renevanwezel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1169468012.490398.308780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You shouldn't use DIC for ultimate resolution.
René.
Now the question may be raised whether separation of the pores
within a stria, can be done by LM. I do not believe that I can do it
with the setup described above. I might be possible to do better
with a projection magnification of 5x or more.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on A.pellucida
- From: Kevin Cunningham
- Re: More on A.pellucida
- From: rene
- Re: More on A.pellucida
- References:
- More on A.pellucida
- From: NoSpam
- Re: More on A.pellucida
- From: rene
- More on A.pellucida
- Prev by Date: Re: More on A.pellucida
- Next by Date: Re: Out-of-Focus Images Made Clear
- Previous by thread: Re: More on A.pellucida
- Next by thread: Re: More on A.pellucida
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
