Date:          Wed, 10 May 2000 09:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
From:          Scott Taft <ss336@yahoo.com>
Subject:       Coverglass thickness
To:            HistoNet Server <HistoNet@pathology.swmed.edu>

Hello Histonetters,

I have another question of the day to pose:

Is there a reason, other than cost, why your lab would
prefer 1.0 thickness coverglass over 1.5 thickness? 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the "old" days it was related to the optics of a microscope.  
Coverslip thickness above1.0 impeded the use of the higher 63x 
dry/oil or 100x oil.  I don't think there is al that much difference 
in cost.  With infinity corrected objectives this is less of a 
problem.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is the reason your lab chooses what it currently
uses? 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We have always used 1.0 coverslips.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How about your Pathologists'?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our Pathologists rarely question scientific decisions we make!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PS- If you use tape, are you considering switching
back to glass?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Most definitely!!!
We are now using the 'new' tape but I have the feeling it will be no 
better than the old tape.  I have also trailed a tape from a Dutch 
company, but was less than satisfied with the result.  They 
apparently use a different resin which supposedly sets harder thus 
keeping the tape on longer??? 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
Scott Taft HT(ASCP) 
Tucson, AZ

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Bill Sinai
Department Manager
Tissue Pathology
ICPMR Westmead Hospital 
WESTMEAD NSW AUSTRALIA
Phone 61+2+9845 7774  Fax 61+2+9687 2330