NetNotes


See: http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/facstaff/Faculty/pages/albrecht/


albrecht_web/Programs/microscopy/s900.html. Tere are references with the images. More images at: http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/facstaff/ Faculty/pages/albrecht/albrecht_web/Programs/microscopy/gallery. html. Imaging colloidal-gold conjugated antibodies on cell surface antigens in the SEM is quite doable depending on the SEM. You do need a good low-voltage FESEM and a high quality backscatter detector, one that works well at low voltages. A “standard” SEM could see 100 nm targets, but that is really huge for labeling surface antigens. Tere will be lots of problems with such a large probe. Even getting proper labeling will be an issue. Do you have access to a good field-emission SEM with a good BSE detector? If yes, then you can use 10 nm or smaller particles, 18 nm particles easily. If you don’t have this access, then you might want to think of a different approach. Philip Oshel oshel1pe@cmich.edu Tu May 26 One reference paper on this topic is here: Schroeder-Reiter E,


Houben A, Wanner G (2003) Chromosome Research 11: 585-596. FE-SEM of chromosomes with nanogold . . . have a close look. Reinhard Rachel reinhard.rachel@biologie.uni-regensburg.de Tu May 26


EM:


service contracts We are caught on the horns of a dilemma. For nearly forty years,


Delta College has trained EM technicians for positions in academia and industry. For most of those forty years our instruments, now numbering 3 TEMs, 4, SEMs, an AFM and an FIB, have been covered by service contracts. Our instruments are used all day, every day for student training. As you may have heard, funding for California schools is getting so tight that the bean counters are turning to drastic measures to make ends meet. Among pressures put on us is a requirement that we enroll at least 20 students/class, nearly impossible in our advanced, hand-on classes. In addition,


the administration is now reluctant


to authorize service contracts for our instruments. Many or our microscopes are older and require more repairs due to their constant use as training instruments. We have received good service from our scope vendor, but it is expensive, mostly because we have so many instruments. Te administrative people only look at the bottom line and when they see the big number, they go ballistic. We are afraid that if we drop our current service contracts that the manufacturer will not pick them up if we want to come back aſter a year off their service. We are afraid that if we go to pay as you go with the manufacturer, we will be low in their priority list, something not good with so many students depending on microscope time to finish projects. We are afraid that if we can find a cheaper, independent service provider, parts will be hard to get and the price of the parts would be in addition to the cost of the service agreement, whereas parts are included in our current contracts. Tis is getting long. Bottom line is we are asking for any advice or suggestions about how to approach this. I have heard all the horror stories about 3rd party insurance plans, etc. Are those stories true? Is it true that vendors move you to the bottom of the list without a contract? What is your experience if ever faced by this kind of situation? What kind of strategy has worked, or not? Jon Krupp jkrupp@deltacollege. edu Tu May 12 Te service contract for a new microscope is worth trying to


include in the price paid for at least about 3 years. During this time keeping a record of each and every little thing that goes wrong will be useful to whoever eventually takes over the maintenance and repair duties. A service contract costs on average about 10% of the purchase price, so a three year contract is a substantial saving that will please the finance people. Te service you get is very dependent


66


on the people who work for the service departments of the individual companies; oſten cutting edge instruments are unknown quantities to the field service engineers. You don’t want to waste money while the instrument is down for the engineer to be educated on-site; so try to get the first few years with a service contract (beyond the warranty period). Don’t sign-off the instrument until you are happy that everything is working, the installation needs to settle the instrument, so try everything yourself before being satisfied. Eventually though there is a time when you are going to be better off without paying the huge bills to the service manager. It has to happen and will depend on you and your staff, to take the brunt of the work, using instructions of friendly service engineers. I don’t believe the stories about low priority, in fact I’d argue they want your money; and so long as you have the quotation matched to the purchase order, you are on the schedule, same as everyone else. If you have many instruments from one company and it makes financial sense to hire an ex-service engineer (it is down to respect they feel from you) it’s a good route, if you get the right one. Parts are oſten sold from a separate office to the service manager, so again if you have the numbers and they have the stock you are going to be fine. For instance we wanted some resistors and didn’t want to wait three months for delivery, so alternatives were found that we believe are as good. Rob Keyse rok210@lehigh.edu Tu May 12 I always advise institutional users to stay with OEM service


contract if they can, or to purchase a service contract from the reputable third-party service provider as a second choice. In the beginning of this year I’ve heard from two industrial users of FIB equipment that they are not allowed to have a service contract with anybody and forced into “pay as you go” mode. Well, guess what— one of them already has her FIB “down” for over a month, and there is nothing I or anyone else can do about it until the institution shells over US $20K in parts and commits to pay for labor of changing them. Tink twice. Valery Ray vray@partbeamsystech.com Tu May 12 We went off contract last year and had to wait over 4 months for


a service. Te engineer said that if it had been a breakdown the delay would have been the same. Dave Patton david.patton@uwe.ac.uk Fri May 13 Dave’s message compelled me to explain a difference between


service contract and one-off service call from the vendor’s perspective. For most of FIB/SEM equipment service providers, both small and large, equipment service is a business activity; it must be profitable or could not continue. Delivering service and making it possible also costs money: most of users do not realize how enormous are the aggregated expenses of labor, travel, sourcing parts, re-designing or substituting obsolete components, warehousing, bean counting, etc. When you buy a service contract from the certain provider, it not just gives you reliable support with predictable response time, but also gives that service organization reliable stream of revenue and predictable work load. Stability allows to plan and structure business, retain and maintain necessary resources, source and stock parts, etc. If customer goes off service contract then situation becomes completely unpredictable: he/she may call in for service, but also may do self-service, hire internal service person, or do whatever else. In such situation managers of the service organization have no other choice but to prepare for the worse and assume that there will be no service calls from this customer. To insure survival of the organization, cost-saving measures follow immediately: engineers are laid off, facilities are closed or downsized, parts are not procured and not stored, and so forth. Tese measures are inevitable—otherwise service organization simply could not continue to exist. Reduced resources will usually be matched to the needs of


www.microscopy-today.com • 2011 September


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84