NetNotes
than an offi ce PC and the realistic costs of soſt ware induced hardware failure etc., the better things will go long term. T en you can get them to suggest solutions. 2. We solved the problem of “connection to the network” and virus transfer via USB with a mixture of policy and tech solutions. For example, we have a TEM that runs Windows 2K on its control PC. T e PC is connected via LAN to another PC running Windows 7 in a diff erent room (this PC also connects the same way to some other microscopes). T e PC also connects, via a separate LAN card, to the organization LAN and the internet, etc. It is fully patched and with security. To get fi les from the microscope users access the shared data drive on the microscope PC from the win 7 pc (which they can do while someone else is using the microscope). You then have a policy of no USB drive, etc. for the microscope PC, which is considered to be “not on the network”. Hope there is something relevant in that. Best wishes, Duane Harland duane.
harland@agresearch.co.nz Mon Apr 27
A few simple steps may help. Step 1: install Win.7/8 PC and disconnect XP/Win2K machine from network. Arguing with IT policy does not work but taking problem off their hands may. Step 2: Let the old PC only run the equipment; do not use it for any other purposes. Step 3: T e old PC should have nothing except necessary app. program and hardware drivers. Transfer/remove all acquired data from it at the end of each session, this way there is nothing to backup. Just keep couple of spare installation disks with application and drivers. Step 4: identify obsolete components i.e. motherboard with older bus type and proprietary interface card(s), etc. Buy spares while available. Or even the entire computer. Cheap for now but will become expensive or NLA just like components for old PDP-based EDS computers in the 90-s. Data transfer can be done in many ways: private network or USB drives or CDs or anything else. If XP machine becomes infected then system restore will likely fi x it but if not then re-install OS and the application - easy with nothing to backup and no data loss. Besides a “lethal” malware is a rarity. My PC-related tech. support problems are almost always about gigabytes of temporary fi les, junk applications plus disk cleanup and defrag- mentation not done in years. Vitaly Feingold
vitalylazar@att.net Mon Apr 27
We are facing the same problem with old computers and not supported operating systems. We use the same solution, a separate local network (hosting 1× Win3.11WfW – an old EDAX DX4, 1× Win98, 2× WinXP and 2× Win7). Here I would like to comment USB drives problem. Aſt er very bad experiences about 10 years ago, no user is allowed to copy data onto his/her own USB drive directly from microscope PC. For USB drive users we use following set-up. We have installed one Linux box in our local network running Debian Wheezy and Samba server. Everyone who wants to copy data onto USB fl ash disk has to do it thru this Linux box and Samba shared folders on the old Win systems. Oldrich Benada benada@biomed.
cas.cz Tue Apr 28
Core Facility: access to user facilities
I am looking for advice from the community about how access to microscope facilities is granted to users. Specifically, I am thinking of something not quite so formal as the General User Access Proposal process available at National Labs, but not as open as our existing “free-for-all” where anyone who requests training can have open access. I don’t need advice on how to train users, rather, I need a fair process on how to determine who should or should not become a user. Does anyone have a policy/process they wish to share--off line if you like--that weighs user requests? Perhaps a policy that includes
74
various levels of access to users based on their needs and skills? And a follow-up question is the magic “silver bullet” of how to monitor users aſt er training to ensure that they are actually doing everything the way they were taught. Roger Ristau
roger.ristau@uconn.edu Fri Apr 10 We are probably a small enough lab that we have remained rather informal about access. T ere are a few people that I have thought about redirecting away from the microscope, as their brain just doesn’t seem to be wired for that kind of work. I don’t know if I have offi cially said anything out loud. Some seemed to have handed off SEM work to others in their research groups who are more adept. Upon granting sign-up privileges, I advise new users whether they are free to sign up as they please or whether I would defi nitely like to be nearby for their next few sessions. Our reservation system, ORS, provides the option for ones to be a resource monitor by e-mail. I set that option for myself so I get notifi ed about every change in the schedule. Most notices can be ignored. A few users are on my watch list. T e delete button is easy to use for those that don’t concern me. We average about 25 hours of use per week. T ere is really no reason that ones have to use the SEM outside of regular hours. A few users are granted or loaned keys for access at any time. Sometimes a last minute evening or weekend session is needed for a paper deadline, but that is unusual. We do allow users to come before we leave for the day and continue their session into the evening. I do review photos occasionally from our users. Mostly I look at the images leſt on the SEM user interface and look deeper if I see signs of poor operation. I plainly reference the cost of detectors during training and assure users that if they follow the standard operating procedures, they should have no problems. I also explain to them that the procedures need to be followed completely and in order. I worked hard to make the short form of the SOP short and practical. It is about 1-1/3 pages with another 2/3 of a page of common shortcut codes. And I tell them of some spectacular failures like ones that couldn’t get an image and it was because they had failed to click the “Beam On” button on the UI. I make it a point to refer users back to the written procedures. Otherwise I allow users to ask me too many questions and they never learn for themselves. I hope these ideas help. I look forward to hearing what others have to say. Warren Straszheim wesaia@iastate. edu Fri Apr 10
I would say that it is important to identify those candidates who indeed have sufficient amount of work to do on SEM. Those who need 2-3 “nice pictures” to get are potentially problematic operators with minor or zero motivation for learning and understanding the technique. The next issue is to provide the users for the approach or some signs of right way to analyze their samples. The idea is to assist users from the very beginning to find the right condition for imaging/microanalysis/diffraction pattern/etc. and to explain the reasons for the choice. The last important issue I would mention is interpersonal relations: its better is the user (especially the new one with no experience) will feel safe and comfortable to report about any problem to the instrument/facility supervisor. Users always make mistakes, but to repair or to come back to the source of the mistake is always easier if you get the whole story and it is done ASAP. This is possible only if user does not afraid to report about a mistake. This also ensures that user will be instructed properly how to avoid this same mistake in the future. Inna Popov innap@savion.
huji.ac.il Sat Apr 11
I operate our SEM/TEM/confocal/epi/laser microdissection facility just like Warren does, so he saved me a lot of typing! It mostly works. Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho
tina@pbrc.hawaii.edu Sun Apr 12
www.microscopy-today.com • 2015 July
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