The Laboratory Robotics Interest Group Discussion Mail List is for comments or
questions about Laboratory Robotics and Automation.   You receive messages
posted to the list and you may post and reply to messages.

Main Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion

To Post by email, send email from your subscribed address to:
lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
To Post on web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/post

To Read Messages on web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/messages

To Subscribe by email, send email to:
lrig-discussion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe on web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/join

To Unsubscribe by email, send email from your subscribed address to:
lrig-discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe on web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/join

The members list is private and is not accessible by anyone other than the
moderator.   This mail list is moderated.  SPAM, flames, or inappropriate
messages are filtered out before they are sent to you.   Our vision at LRIG for
this mail list is that it should be a dynamic forum for users and vendors to
freely exchange ideas and solve problems.   We want to be sure that the demeanor
of the mail list reflects the desires of the subscribers.   The majority of the
subscribers have indicated that they do not want to receive unsolicited sales or
promotional messages in this forum.   However, it is entirely appropriate and
welcomed that vendors reply publicly to an inquiry posted to the list.

To this end, we request that when a subscriber asks a question about specific
equipment or functionality, your reply remain in the same vein of specificity
and not merely become an opportunity to advertise your company.  If someone asks
about a certain functionality, please do not reply with a "we can do anything,
call me".  In this case you could give examples of work you have done in that
area.  If someone brings up an issue with a manufacturer's equipment, please
don't counter with "well mine is better because...". It may be better to reply
to a query privately if your response does not add value to the group
discussion.  Use your judgement on the appropriateness of your response.  We do
not want to get into the censorship business.

If you have new product related information to disseminate, it may be posted on
our Announcement Board at:
http://lab-robotics.org/announce.htm

Links to your company showing your products and services may be displayed at:
http://lab-robotics.org/vendors1.htm

A couple of comments on posting etiquette:

1) When you reply to a message trim the original message down to just the
portion you are replying to (if possible).   The aim is to reduce the clutter
for the list members while preserving the sense of the message.
2) It's nice to say "thanks" to respondents who helped you out, but do it
directly to them and not to the whole list.
3) The same applies for individualized messages that do not add value or
knowledge to the discussion.
4) Be aware that when you reply to a message, the default is that it goes to the
whole group.   If your message is personal, be sure it is addressed only to the
intended party.
5) Please do not post a message with "Return Receipt Requested".   This violates
our privacy policy.

If the volume of individual email messages is a problem, consider "Daily Digest"
or "No Email" mode. A digest is a single email message containing the contents
of all the messages posted to the mailing list during a day. Another option is
to read messages on the web site only.  You can set your subscription to "Daily
Digest" or "No Email" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/join.

This is a periodic message and not targeted at any particular posts.

If you are not a member of the Laboratory Robotics Interest Group, a
registration form may be found at:
http://lab-robotics.org/member_registration.htm

Andy Zaayenga
Moderator, The LRIG Discussion Mail List
mailto:andy.zaayenga@...
web site: http://lab-robotics.org

Hello

Im currently starting to design a Mother/Daughter Replicator
(Fractionator).
Im looking at ways to improve on existing systems in the market.
If anyone uses this kind of system and would like to highlight any
design/use issues Id be keen to hear from them.
If my design is approved we will look at building prototypes so Id be
glad to give feedback to anyone who makes suggestions.

Thanks in advance - any thoughts would be appreciated

Dear Scott,

What sort of samples are you looking to replicate?
We have a great machine that does this and rearraying (cherry picking)
already. It's called the QSelect and can be found on our website under
products in the genomics instruments section.

Best regards,

Sue

Sue Richards PhD
Marketing Director
Genetix Limited
New Milton
BH25 5NN
UK
Tel: +44 1425 624795
Fax: +44 1425 624747


-----Original Message-----
From: scott_landy00 [mailto:scott_landy00@...]
Sent: 02 April 2003 00:05
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lrig-discussion] Mother daughter Replicator

Hello

Im currently starting to design a Mother/Daughter Replicator
(Fractionator).
Im looking at ways to improve on existing systems in the market.
If anyone uses this kind of system and would like to highlight any
design/use issues Id be keen to hear from them.
If my design is approved we will look at building prototypes so Id be
glad to give feedback to anyone who makes suggestions.

Thanks in advance - any thoughts would be appreciated



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily Genetix Ltd (Genetix) or any company associated with it.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely
for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended
recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and
that any use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
error please notify Genetix by telephone on +44 (0)1425 624600.

The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message
is strictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned
for viruses prior to leaving the Genetix network. Genetix will not be
liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages as a
result of any virus being passed on, or arising from alteration of the
contents of this message by a third party.

Hi Neil
Thanks for your reply. I'd hoped to generate some comment from the
manufacturers; but everybody seems to be going politically correct these
days, or maybe they just do not want to think about this issue!
Yours Sincerely
John

Neil Benn wrote:

> Hello,
>
>             You're approaching onto classical software design issues
> there.  Therefore there won't be a straight-forward answer.  However
> here is my opinion:-
>

<snip>
--
John Brohan        National Instruments LabVIEW expert in Montreal
Traders Micro         "We connect all sorts of things to computers"
317 Barberry Place DDO Montreal PQ Canada H9G 1V3 Tel (514)995-3749
explorer http://www.tradersmicro.com/GeminiChemistry_files/frame.htm

Hello Scott,

Zymark has developed several optimized platforms for high throughput and
ultra high throughput automated mother daughter plate replication. Based on
the capabilities of the Sciclone ALH3000 liquid handling platform,  mother
plates in either 96 or 384 well format can be rapidly and precisely
replicated (in volume ranges from between 100 nanoliters to 200 microliters)
into 96/384 or even 1536 well formats. For ultra high throughput
applications the Sciclone platform can be coupled with automated stackers
and incorporated into the Allegro platform to enable the processing of as
many as 200 daughter plates per hour. Please visit our web site for more
info. or feel free to contact me directly for additional detail or
questions.

Best regards,

Mark

_______________________
Mark T. Roskey, Ph.D.
Marketing & Applications
Zymark Corporation
Zymark Center
Hopkinton, Ma 01748
Phone: 508-497-2841
Fax: 508-497-2726
email: mark.roskey@...



-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Richards [mailto:sue.richards@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:00 AM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lrig-discussion] Mother daughter Replicator


Dear Scott,

What sort of samples are you looking to replicate?
We have a great machine that does this and rearraying (cherry picking)
already. It's called the QSelect and can be found on our website under
products in the genomics instruments section.

Best regards,

Sue

Sue Richards PhD
Marketing Director
Genetix Limited
New Milton
BH25 5NN
UK
Tel: +44 1425 624795
Fax: +44 1425 624747


-----Original Message-----
From: scott_landy00 [mailto:scott_landy00@...]
Sent: 02 April 2003 00:05
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lrig-discussion] Mother daughter Replicator

Hello

Im currently starting to design a Mother/Daughter Replicator
(Fractionator).
Im looking at ways to improve on existing systems in the market.
If anyone uses this kind of system and would like to highlight any
design/use issues Id be keen to hear from them.
If my design is approved we will look at building prototypes so Id be
glad to give feedback to anyone who makes suggestions.

Thanks in advance - any thoughts would be appreciated



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily Genetix Ltd (Genetix) or any company associated with it.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely
for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended
recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and
that any use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
error please notify Genetix by telephone on +44 (0)1425 624600.

The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message
is strictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned
for viruses prior to leaving the Genetix network. Genetix will not be
liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages as a
result of any virus being passed on, or arising from alteration of the
contents of this message by a third party.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Plan to Attend the 21st Annual ISLAR, the International Symposium on Laboratory
Automation and Robotics
October 19-22, 2003, Boston, MA
Register Today at http://www.islar.com

Can I just remind everyone that Scott is looking for Replicator
users, not providers.  It sounds like he would like input from end
users on what works or doesn't work on current offerings.

Andy Zaayenga
Moderator, LRIG Discussion Group
mailto:andy.zaayenga@...
web site: http://lab-robotics.org


--- In lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com, "scott_landy00"
<scott_landy00@y...> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Im currently starting to design a Mother/Daughter Replicator
> (Fractionator).
> Im looking at ways to improve on existing systems in the market.
> If anyone uses this kind of system and would like to highlight any
> design/use issues Id be keen to hear from them.
> If my design is approved we will look at building prototypes so Id
be
> glad to give feedback to anyone who makes suggestions.
>
> Thanks in advance - any thoughts would be appreciated

Hi John
In over 200 robot installations only one customer has ever asked us for
the DLLs and what they do. Even our ActiveX interface is rarely used.
Any manufacturer wants to formalize and control the information it gives
out, and to write up appropriate, tested documentation which costs a lot
and it just isnt worth it when only one in a hundred wants it. They also
want to avoid customers asking difficult questions and having to fall
back on expensive technical staff. A difficult balance.
David

John Brohan wrote:
>
> Hi Neil
> Thanks for your reply. I'd hoped to generate some comment from the
> manufacturers; but everybody seems to be going politically correct these
> days, or maybe they just do not want to think about this issue!
> Yours Sincerely
> John


--
________________________________________________________
       David N. Sands, ST Robotics International
       Website: http://www.strobotics.com

Free e-disk featuring animations of R17 and R19 robots.
Advise mailing address and we'll mail one out to you.

Please do not reply to robotics1@... as this is outgoing mail
only. Just hit reply or reply to david@...

something like this would be great

A wide volume range low volume 100nL up to 2mL with

Interchangeable 96-384 heads

We like disposable tips unless a fast wash with little waste is available

96-385-1536 reformat capabilities

Integrated stackers for source, tips, and destination ...... no arms with
grippers

Up to 20 destination plates per source

Under $ 60,000

With a 5-year warranty comparable to other items that cost this much like a car.

Vendors should stand by their equipment.

B.R.D.





  scott_landy00 <scott_landy00@...> wrote:Hello

Im currently starting to design a Mother/Daughter Replicator
(Fractionator).
Im looking at ways to improve on existing systems in the market.
If anyone uses this kind of system and would like to highlight any
design/use issues Id be keen to hear from them.
If my design is approved we will look at building prototypes so Id be
glad to give feedback to anyone who makes suggestions.

Thanks in advance - any thoughts would be appreciated



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In screening enzyme inhibitors to determine IC-50 or Ki values, one problem is
how to distinguish between two interpretations of the same data.  The same or
very similar dose-response behavior can be generated by:

    (1) a chemically pure and moderately potent enzyme inhibitor, or

    (2) a small amount of very potent ("tight binding") impurity in otherwise
weakly potent or even completely inactive bulk material.

I'd like to announce a pre-print of an "Analytical Biochemistry" article, which
was was accepted for publication last week (it will probable appear in print in
late Spring).  This paper describes a method that can be used, in very favorable
circumstances, to distinguish between these two possibilities by using a newly
derived kinetic equation.

You can access the full text of this article here:

	 http://www.biokin.com/papers/ki-impurity/

I hope this might be useful to those people involved in HTS and secondary
screening, who are dealing with enzyme inhibitors on a daily basis.

Regards,

	 - Petr Kuzmic

_______________________________________________________
P e t r   K u z m i c,  Ph. D.  * BioKin Ltd.
1652 S. Grand Ave. * Suite 337  * Pullman, WA 99163
509.334.4131 * 509.332.3493 fax * http://www.biokin.com

Hi, what do you want to do? Mother-daughter replication of 96, 384, 1536
well plates? Which replication steps, 96 to 96, 96 to 384, .......?
We use for our processes the BasePlate made by The Automation Partnership.
Very reliable, runs unattended and we enabled the device for cherry
picking. To the device a big storage area is linked, so we are able to
process in maximum 1000 plates in one run.
Cheers
Steffen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,

I have to agree with David. The programming skills of our customer bases
vary so widely that a significant amount of effort (money) would have to go
into the design, bulletproofing, and technical support to be able to offer
something like that. I would estimate that our ActiveX interface is used by
less than 2% of our customers. The market for a complete documentation of
lower level functions should be even smaller. The return on investment just
isn't there.

Ernie

-----Original Message-----
From: David [mailto:David@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:27 PM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lrig-discussion] DLL's


Hi John
In over 200 robot installations only one customer has ever asked us for
the DLLs and what they do. Even our ActiveX interface is rarely used.
Any manufacturer wants to formalize and control the information it gives
out, and to write up appropriate, tested documentation which costs a lot
and it just isnt worth it when only one in a hundred wants it. They also
want to avoid customers asking difficult questions and having to fall
back on expensive technical staff. A difficult balance.
David

John Brohan wrote:
>
> Hi Neil
> Thanks for your reply. I'd hoped to generate some comment from the
> manufacturers; but everybody seems to be going politically correct these
> days, or maybe they just do not want to think about this issue!
> Yours Sincerely
> John


--
________________________________________________________
       David N. Sands, ST Robotics International
       Website: http://www.strobotics.com

Free e-disk featuring animations of R17 and R19 robots.
Advise mailing address and we'll mail one out to you.

Please do not reply to robotics1@... as this is outgoing mail
only. Just hit reply or reply to david@...




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Another concern that giving away .dll access to customers can bring up are
warranty and service issues.  It's difficult enough for suppliers and
service techies to recognize unusual hardware problems, let alone the
problems that software mods may precipitate.  We usually end up having to
warranty the off-the-shelf hardware ourselves that we purchase and install
if we perform modifications at that level...  We ask for access to .dll's,
only to know how to build our communication protocols, this leaves the
off-the-shelf system basically intact for service and repair by their
supplier...

David...as for the manufacturers lack of response...I have come to believe
that their firewalls are programmed to filter any messages with and
combination of the words ".dll, modify, or access!"

Kidding aside, it has been our experience that a few of the manufacturers
have a limited understanding of their own programming at that level...one
manufacturer in particular was quite honest in his reply to some of our
questions when he responded that "the guy who wrote that doesn't work here
anymore...!"


Jeffrey Walter
Accounts Manager
Biomation,
Life Sciences Group of CTA, Inc.
888.297.4710 v
256.353.1774 f

This e-mail transmission may contain forward-looking statements.  Such
statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those projected.  This e-mail
transmission (and/or the documents accompanying it) may also contain
information belonging to the sender which is confidential, privileged and/or
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended
only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail transmission in error, please immediately notify us by return
e-mail or telephone to arrange for return of its contents including any
documents.

-----Original Message-----
From: David [mailto:David@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:27 PM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lrig-discussion] DLL's

Hi John
In over 200 robot installations only one customer has ever asked us for
the DLLs and what they do. Even our ActiveX interface is rarely used.
Any manufacturer wants to formalize and control the information it gives
out, and to write up appropriate, tested documentation which costs a lot
and it just isnt worth it when only one in a hundred wants it. They also
want to avoid customers asking difficult questions and having to fall
back on expensive technical staff. A difficult balance.
David

John Brohan wrote:
>
> Hi Neil
> Thanks for your reply. I'd hoped to generate some comment from the
> manufacturers; but everybody seems to be going politically correct these
> days, or maybe they just do not want to think about this issue!
> Yours Sincerely
> John


--
________________________________________________________
       David N. Sands, ST Robotics International
       Website: http://www.strobotics.com

Free e-disk featuring animations of R17 and R19 robots.
Advise mailing address and we'll mail one out to you.

Please do not reply to robotics1@... as this is outgoing mail
only. Just hit reply or reply to david@...




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Just want to pass on this message.  This is a great forum with
almost 1300 members.  We don't want to dilute the intent of the
discussion list, which is to be a "dynamic forum for users and
vendors to freely exchange ideas and solve problems".  If it becomes
more of an advertising opportunity than an opportunity to raise the
state of the art, we will have squandered a valuable resource.

Thank you.

Andy
____________________


Andy,
Thanks for this message.  I think this has been getting much too
commercial (and I'm a vendor).  I want to hear what customers have
to say, and I fear all of this selling is driving people away.

<snip>

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Zaayenga [mailto:andy.zaayenga@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:01 PM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lrig-discussion] Re: Mother daughter Replicator


Can I just remind everyone that Scott is looking for Replicator
users, not providers.  It sounds like he would like input from end
users on what works or doesn't work on current offerings.

Andy Zaayenga
Moderator, LRIG Discussion Group
mailto:andy.zaayenga@...
web site: http://lab-robotics.org

I think there are 2 issues here:

Firmware
API

Sometimes the bottleneck is the Firmware, as one call to the API may result in
10 actions inside the firmware.
DLL is very client centric (Microsoft), a better approach would be to make this
client independent.
It is how these DLLs are built are at the core of the issue.

Most firmware devices do not have operating systems (they are instruction sets
-- EEPROM or Flash that are mostly microcontroller based). The APIs need an OS
to communicate. These are usually standalone PCs, or interface boards inside
PCs.

There are many efforts to move the instrument control layer protocol this into a
universal arena (LECIS is one of them). There is another aspect of what to do
with the data that streams out of these instruments (not as important an issue
for binary instruments, but for analysis instruments, this is critical).

Standardization of error management and API implementation (not just DLLs) is
often overlooked (better error management can actually improve the service
response cycle and consumable supply cycle). This answers Jeffrey's point about
Change Control.

The Industrial Automation industry (sort of) solved this a long time ago with
standard Bus structures: CANbus, MODbus, Profibus, DeviceNet are published
formats. All APIs (DLLs in this specific instance are written to the
implementation standards of these buses). The business model is "instrument
engine" + "standardized bus" + "bus controller and API"...

Good software engineering principles extend beyond developing the API (or even
the firmware).
I will not open that can of worms.

I believe that the instrument manufacturers will actually sell more instruments
if the API is available for integration (as instrument function calls).

My two duckets.

Sanjay


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Walter [mailto:jwalter@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:47 AM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lrig-discussion] DLL's


Another concern that giving away .dll access to customers can bring up are
warranty and service issues.  It's difficult enough for suppliers and service
techies to recognize unusual hardware problems, let alone the problems that
software mods may precipitate.  We usually end up having to warranty the
off-the-shelf hardware ourselves that we purchase and install if we perform
modifications at that level...  We ask for access to .dll's, only to know how to
build our communication protocols, this leaves the off-the-shelf system
basically intact for service and repair by their supplier...

David...as for the manufacturers lack of response...I have come to believe that
their firewalls are programmed to filter any messages with and combination of
the words ".dll, modify, or access!"

Kidding aside, it has been our experience that a few of the manufacturers have a
limited understanding of their own programming at that level...one manufacturer
in particular was quite honest in his reply to some of our questions when he
responded that "the guy who wrote that doesn't work here anymore...!"


Jeffrey Walter
Accounts Manager
Biomation,
Life Sciences Group of CTA, Inc.
888.297.4710 v
256.353.1774 f

-----Original Message-----
From: David [mailto:David@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:27 PM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lrig-discussion] DLL's

Hi John
In over 200 robot installations only one customer has ever asked us for the DLLs
and what they do. Even our ActiveX interface is rarely used. Any manufacturer
wants to formalize and control the information it gives out, and to write up
appropriate, tested documentation which costs a lot and it just isnt worth it
when only one in a hundred wants it. They also want to avoid customers asking
difficult questions and having to fall back on expensive technical staff. A
difficult balance. David

John Brohan wrote:
>
> Hi Neil
> Thanks for your reply. I'd hoped to generate some comment from the
> manufacturers; but everybody seems to be going politically correct
> these days, or maybe they just do not want to think about this issue!
> Yours Sincerely John


--
________________________________________________________
       David N. Sands, ST Robotics International
       Website: http://www.strobotics.com

hi,

i am currently looking into purchasing both a 96 well plate washer
and an absorbance reader to asist with basic elisas.

i have gotten information from many companies and was wondering if
anyone has good or bad experiences with any of the following.

also feel free to suggest another brand i haven't yet considered.

Bio-Tek;  ELX405VR washer and Powerwave XS reader (monochometer)
Tecan;  96W washer and Spectraflour reader (filter based)
Molecular Devices; Embla96/384 washer and SpectraMax plus reader
(monochrometer).

thank you in advance for your help.

michelle

I have been very happy with my MD plate reader...very easy to use and low
maintenance.

Zach Huggins
-----Original Message-----
From: miacolina [mailto:miacolina@...]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 4:09 PM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lrig-discussion] plate washers and readers


hi,

i am currently looking into purchasing both a 96 well plate washer
and an absorbance reader to asist with basic elisas.

i have gotten information from many companies and was wondering if
anyone has good or bad experiences with any of the following.

also feel free to suggest another brand i haven't yet considered.

Bio-Tek;  ELX405VR washer and Powerwave XS reader (monochometer)
Tecan;  96W washer and Spectraflour reader (filter based)
Molecular Devices; Embla96/384 washer and SpectraMax plus reader
(monochrometer).

thank you in advance for your help.

michelle


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hello Michelle,

Most of these companies will let you have an on-site demonstration.  I
would encourage you to find (or make) a standard plate, read it multiple
times in each of the demo readers, and do the statistics.  Also, don't
neglect the software, which ranges from basic communication packages to
huge, complicated, behemoths, capable of nearly anything.

In my hands, Bio-Tek and Tecan washers are excellent, and I have had
great luck with the Bio-Tek reader.

Best of luck,
G. S. Hudson


miacolina wrote:

>hi,
>
>i am currently looking into purchasing both a 96 well plate washer
>and an absorbance reader to asist with basic elisas.
>
>i have gotten information from many companies and was wondering if
>anyone has good or bad experiences with any of the following.
>
>also feel free to suggest another brand i haven't yet considered.
>
>Bio-Tek;  ELX405VR washer and Powerwave XS reader (monochometer)
>Tecan;  96W washer and Spectraflour reader (filter based)
>Molecular Devices; Embla96/384 washer and SpectraMax plus reader
>(monochrometer).
>
>thank you in advance for your help.
>
>michelle
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Michelle,

I currently use a Biotek ELX405 and its very good. Easy to use and to
programm, the head is easily taken apart for washing and tip 'de-blocking'.
It's versatile and can 96 as well as 384.
I also use a Tecan power-washer with a 384 head and that's equally good
although I find flow rate (dispense and aspirate) easier to set up with the
biotek.

Regarding the readers, knowing what you might do in the future (in terms of
assays) might help you more to decide if you want a straight absorbance
reader or a more versatile one (I personnally like the Tecan Ultra for
absorbance/fluorescence work plus it's Excel based and users are more
inclined to learn to use it).

I hope this helps.

Fabrice
-------------------------------
Dr Fabrice Turlais
Automation Specialist
HTS group
Biofocus Discovery Ltd.
10 Cambridge Science Park
Milton Road
Cambridge CB4 0FG, UK
Tel. +44 (0)1223 723 222
Tel. direct +44 (0)1223 723 756
Fax. +44 (0)1223 723 223
fturlais@...



-----Original Message-----
From: miacolina [mailto:miacolina@...]
Sent: 04 April 2003 23:09
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lrig-discussion] plate washers and readers


hi,

i am currently looking into purchasing both a 96 well plate washer
and an absorbance reader to asist with basic elisas.

i have gotten information from many companies and was wondering if
anyone has good or bad experiences with any of the following.

also feel free to suggest another brand i haven't yet considered.

Bio-Tek;  ELX405VR washer and Powerwave XS reader (monochometer)
Tecan;  96W washer and Spectraflour reader (filter based)
Molecular Devices; Embla96/384 washer and SpectraMax plus reader
(monochrometer).

thank you in advance for your help.

michelle


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential.  They may contain
privileged information and are intended for the named addressee(s) only.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and
do not disclose, distribute, or retain this e-mail or any part of it.
Unless expressly stated, opinions in this email are those of the
individual sender, and not of BioFocus plc.  BioFocus plc reserves the
right to monitor all e-mail communications through its network.  This
e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by MessageLabs.

_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential.  They may contain
privileged information and are intended for the named addressee(s) only.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and
do not disclose, distribute, or retain this e-mail or any part of it.
Unless expressly stated, opinions in this email are those of the
individual sender, and not of BioFocus plc.  BioFocus plc reserves the
right to monitor all e-mail communications through its network.  This
e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by MessageLabs.

John,

Some good feedback so far, here's my take.
My background (about 18 yrs) has been in industrial automation
for semiconductor, electronic, mechanical and more recently, bio/pharma
applications.

I saw this debate erupt in the general robotics industry a few years back.
Most robots are made in Japan, and the Japanese were very slow to embrace
open systems.  This was mostly due to safety concerns.  Even a small SCARA
robot
moving at 600mm/s can give cause serious injury.  Robot manufactures go to
great
lengths to ensure that their products are used safely and opening up the
system
to third party control allows users to exercise the product in ways the
manufacture
never intended, or imagined.  Liability is a huge concern.  When a big
industrial
robot tattoos someone with an engine block the first thing a lawyer will
look for is
the manufacturer with the biggest name ($$$).

However, as industries begin to standardize, this becomes less of an issue.
The robot
industry has developed internationally recognized safety standards that try
to address
such concerns.  Still, these standards are really geared towards bigger
devices than
plate movers or liquid handlers.

In our sector, most people consider a robot to be an XYZ device for liquid
handling.  Although perfectly suited for our needs, they tend to be rather
impish compared
to Detroit's requirements.   We have not yet seen the push for standards
that more mature
industries have experienced.  The Semiconductor and Electronics Assembly
industries have very
well thought-out standards models that make it easier for many vendors
equipment to interconnect
and be controlled by third party HMI software.  DLL's and ActiveX controls
are essential tools
for swimming in that pond.

Net/Net - be patient.  Instrument manufacturers and integrators will
eventually come to realize
that standards help them save both time and money.  At Zymark, our Sciclone
ALH3000 liquid handler and
Twister II plate mover both have full featured ActiveX control sets.  In
fact, most of the devices
that are controlled via our ICP (instrument control panels) in CLARA (our
programming and scheduling software)
expose their ActiveX controls.  We are now starting to get more requests for
such capability and I suspect the trend will continue.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Kevin Keras - Zymark

-----Original Message-----
From: John Brohan [mailto:jbrohan@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 8:50 PM
To: irig
Subject: [lrig-discussion] DLL's


Hello

I have written programs to use laboratory instruments from many
manufacturers. For some analytical machines I've even had to parse the
print stream. Others have provided documentation of varying completeness
and varying accuracy of the commands accessible from the serial port or
through the communications processor.

1) What are the pros and cons of an instrument manufacturer showing the
entry points to his DLL's in a public document on the web? Some
manufacturers produce such documents freely, others less willingly, and
others not at all. Are there some real secrets in the dll's which
require the non-disclosure agreement I've sometimes been asked to sign?

2) How many entry points should there be? The Tecan Toolbox seems to
contain thousands of entry points. These must be groupings of simpler
entry points.

Yours Sincerely
--
John Brohan        National Instruments LabVIEW expert in Montreal
Traders Micro         "We connect all sorts of things to computers"
317 Barberry Place DDO Montreal PQ Canada H9G 1V3 Tel (514)995-3749
explorer http://www.tradersmicro.com/GeminiChemistry_files/frame.htm




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Plan to Attend the 21st Annual ISLAR, the International Symposium on Laboratory
Automation and Robotics
October 19-22, 2003, Boston, MA
Register Today at http://www.islar.com

Hello All,

I am looking for a bar code solution for a Tecan Carousel Stacker.
The unit has to be small enough to fit just under the "elevator".
Must be capable of scanning bar codes on plates, and must interface
with Tecan Genesis software.

Can anyone recommend an affordable and efficient solution?

Thank you in advance,


Rich

Richard Tula
Biodirect Inc.
508-455-1960

Hello,

             There are small scanners from Microscan and Keyence.  We've
used theBL610H and it works well for code128s - as to running it under
the genesis software I doubt there is a driver - you can hack a solution
together using a shell command and reading back from a file but that is
a bit ugly.  If you are running FACTS then you can do it but I don't
know wether there is a driver from these scanners.  However there is a
driver creation kit you can buy which allows you to write a driver in VB
(and C++ I think).

Cheers,


Neil

derrichster wrote:

>Hello All,
>
>I am looking for a bar code solution for a Tecan Carousel Stacker.
>The unit has to be small enough to fit just under the "elevator".
>Must be capable of scanning bar codes on plates, and must interface
>with Tecan Genesis software.
>
>Can anyone recommend an affordable and efficient solution?
>
>Thank you in advance,
>
>
>Rich
>
>Richard Tula
>Biodirect Inc.
>508-455-1960
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--
Neil Benn
Senior automation Informatics Scientist

Cambridge Antibody Technology
Milstein Building
Granta Park
Cambridge
CB1 6GH
UK
Telephone: + 44 (0) 1223 471471
Facsimile + 44 (0) 1223 471472
E-mail: mailto:neil.benn@...
http://www.cambridgeantibody.com

Cambridge Antibody Technology Limited *
Registered Office:
Milstein Building, Granta Park, Cambridge, CB1 6GH, UK
Registered in England and Wales number 2451177
(* Cambridge Antibody Technology Limited is a member of the
Cambridge Antibody Technology Group of Companies)

Confidentiality Note: This information and any attachments is
confidential and only for use by the individual or entity to whom
it has been sent. Any unauthorised dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient please inform the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and delete this message from your system.
Thank you for your co-operation.

Hi Rich,

Check Opticon, Microscan and Keyence.
Keyence has one of the smallest of the general purpose bar-code readers. From
any of the manufacturer you are looking between $500-$1000 for this device.

Good luck


Amer El-Hage
Director, Product Development
IonWorks
Molecular Devices, Corp.
1311 Orleans Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Tel:(408)-747-3640
Fax:(408)-548-6017
amer_elhage@...

The information in this email and all attachments are confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this email and all the
attachments.
Thank you.

>>> rftula@... 4/8/03 6:39:06 AM >>>
Hello All,

I am looking for a bar code solution for a Tecan Carousel Stacker.
The unit has to be small enough to fit just under the "elevator".
Must be capable of scanning bar codes on plates, and must interface
with Tecan Genesis software.

Can anyone recommend an affordable and efficient solution?

Thank you in advance,


Rich

Richard Tula
Biodirect Inc.
508-455-1960


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Dear fellow list members,

I'm doing research on microarrays and their use and trying to better
understand the trends in this space.  I'm interested in speaking with as
many scientists as possible that currently use microarrays in their
research.

If you could take a quick moment and respond to the questions below, I would
appreciate it.  Please send answers to amanda612@...; do not reply
to all members of the group.

I am willing to share my findings with anyone who answers the questions.
Just indicate such in your email.

Thank you for your time,
Amanda

Microarray Research Questions:
1. Which company do you buy your microarrays from or do you make your own
custom arrays, and what % of the microarrays that you buy are custom arrays?
2. In what capacity do you use microarrays (i.e. gene expression/discovery,
target validation, etc.)?
3. How many microarrays did you use in 2002, and how much (%) do you expect
your microarray usage to change in 2003 and 2004?
4. What density of microarrays do you typically use (i.e. low, medium or
high density), and how do you expect this usage pattern to change over the
next 2 years?
5. What is your average price per microarray, and how sensitive are you to
the price of microarrays? How much did the average price decrease in 2002
and what do you expect for 2003?

Hello,

We are running various real time in-house PCR for diagnostic
purposes. After accreditation and validation of our in-house PCR
methods, we wish to streamline our production. Therefore, we need
advice on interfacing the software running the nucleic acid
extraction robots (GenoM48 and Qiagen BioRobot 9604) and software
running the cyclers (SmartCyclerII, ABI 7900HT and ABI 5700) with our
LIS. Any ideas would be helpful. Thanks, Håkon.


**********************************
Håkon Haaheim
Project Manager
University Hospital of Tromsø
Dep of Microbiology
N-9038 Tromsø
Norway
Phone: +47-77-62-84-49
GSM: +47-93-42-25-10
eFax +44-870-127-2679
E-mail: hakon.haaheim@...
   .-. .-.   .-. .-.   .-. .-.   .-. .-.   .-.
  /|||\|||\ /|||\|||\ /|||\|||\ /|||\|||\ /|||\
|||/ \|||\|||/ \|||\|||/ \|||\|||/ \|||\|||/ \
`-'   `-' `-'   `-' `-'   `-' `-'   `-' `-'

Rich,
	 We have a Tecan supplied barcode reader which fits exactly where you want.  It
is supported in the FACTS software.  I suggest contacting your local sales rep.

Best regards,

Ian
Dowpharma

Cambridge CB4 OWG, UK



-----Original Message-----
From: derrichster [mailto:rftula@...]
Sent: 08 April 2003 14:39
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lrig-discussion] Off-the-shelf Bar Code for Tecan Carousel
Stacker


Hello All,

I am looking for a bar code solution for a Tecan Carousel Stacker.
The unit has to be small enough to fit just under the "elevator".
Must be capable of scanning bar codes on plates, and must interface
with Tecan Genesis software.

Can anyone recommend an affordable and efficient solution?

Thank you in advance,


Rich

Richard Tula
Biodirect Inc.
508-455-1960


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi everyone,
I am currently working on the validation of several liquid handling
robot and I need some help to determine what kind of criteria I need
to validate the robots.
For the moment, I am using a method with absorption (using
tartrazine) and my criteria are the CV's and the accuracy...
My question is: What is the maximum acceptable CV for 96 or 384
plates with uniform injection ???
Thank you for your help
DD-screen

In our opinion the liquids that you pipette in your applications will decide
on the lowest values of CV that you can achieve and with some customization
(if necessary) of the liquid handling instrument to your liquids it should
enable you to arrive at acceptable levels in the range of 1-5% or whatever
specification is set from the manufacturer.

For the liquid handling robot we manufacture using absorbance readings, we
achieve CV under 10% at 50 nanolitres for both accuracy and precision and as
the dispensed volume increases these CV values are coming down to between
1-5% for precision and 1-10% for accuracy.

Regards

D



----- Original Message -----
From: "dd_screen" <dd_screen@...>
To: <lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:12 AM
Subject: [lrig-discussion] validation criteria in lab automation


> Hi everyone,
> I am currently working on the validation of several liquid handling
> robot and I need some help to determine what kind of criteria I need
> to validate the robots.
> For the moment, I am using a method with absorption (using
> tartrazine) and my criteria are the CV's and the accuracy...
> My question is: What is the maximum acceptable CV for 96 or 384
> plates with uniform injection ???
> Thank you for your help
> DD-screen
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

The stackers on our 384 well FLIPR have failed a couple of times in the
last 2 weeks and we're wondering if we could achieve more reliable plate
handling by integrating a CRS arm to feed plates to the FLIPR.

Has anyone out there done this and are you happy with the results?

Have other people integrated their 384 well FLIPRs to other plate
handlers with success?

Do users feel that 384 well FLIPR stackers are any more or less
reliable than those on other automated workstations?

I'm sure the truth is out there.

John Morin

Dear all,

I am looking for a reliable 96/384 well pipettor to spot peptides onto a 384
spot maldi target and subsequently removal of residual salt by washing the
crystals with water using the same robot.
My throughput must be about 30 maldi plates in a day and once a week.
Does somebody have same experience with this application and/or recommend a
particular brand ?


Dr. Gert-Jan Euverink
BioExplore, University of Groningen
The Netherlands

DD-screen

Interesting question. I head the Applied Sciences and Technology group at
Zymark Corporation where we are often asked to demonstrate the accuracy and
precision limits attainable with our Sciclone 3000 and RapidPlate 96/384
liquid handlers. For transfer volumes in excess of 5 microliters into
96-well plates, the tartrazine/absorption model is usually sufficient to
demonstrate accuracies greater than 95% with CV in the 1-3% range. This
assumes, however, a 'wet' transfer (either into a well already containing
30+ microliters buffer, or a 30+ microliter buffer 'chase') or a second
addition of buffer, to provide a  volume sufficient to read the well. For
384-well plates, and for transfer volumes lower than 5 microliters, it is
probably better to use a fluorescent dye (many labs recommend Rhodamine G
for this procedure) with better signal-to-noise characteristics. Unless you
have direct imaging capabilities available, the same transfer caveats apply
- you still need to ensure a sufficient light path for your reader, and this
usually means inclusion of a second 'buffer' to avoid meniscus effects in
the well. Most recently, we have seen reports on the use of
luminescence-based technology to overcome theses light path issues.

Regardless of the technology you choose for these determinations, it is
important to make the determinations with relevant liquid samples (i.e.,
DMSO with/without 'standard' compound, PBS solution with/without protein
content, etc) rather than simple deionized water plus detection agent, since
different liquid 'classes have significantly different pipetting
characteristics.

As a very general rule, we anticipate accuracies of 98+ percent, with CV of
1-2% for transfer volumes above 5 microliters when using disposable tips.
For volumes between 1 and 5 microliters, we require CV less than 5%, and
with disposable tips, and anticipate less than 3% with fixed cannula arrays.
For lower volumes (100 to 500 microliters), these values are about the same
when using fixed cannula arrays, but roughly doubled when using disposable
tips. For still lower volumes, we recommend a different transfer device -
the Sciclone iNL10.


Hope this helps -

Ed
  -----Original Message-----
From:  dd_screen [mailto:dd_screen@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 5:12 AM
To: lrig-discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lrig-discussion] validation criteria in lab automation

Hi everyone,
I am currently working on the validation of several liquid handling
robot and I need some help to determine what kind of criteria I need
to validate the robots.
For the moment, I am using a method with absorption (using
tartrazine) and my criteria are the CV's and the accuracy...
My question is: What is the maximum acceptable CV for 96 or 384
plates with uniform injection ???
Thank you for your help
DD-screen



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lrig-discussion/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Plan to Attend the 21st Annual ISLAR, the International Symposium on Laboratory
Automation and Robotics
October 19-22, 2003, Boston, MA
Register Today at http://www.islar.com