<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Igor, I think the real 230 nm peak is much to the left of where your latest calibration graph starts. Compare to this slide showing intensity scans for clean and dirty lamps, and you will see there should be many more xenon emission peaks between 230 and ~500 nm. The error message is perhaps telling you that there really is a problem with the wavelength drive mechanism. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>You might try manually entering the wavelength calibration parameters from your other XL-I (after writing down the current ones so you can restore them) from the Service…Absorbance…Cal Parameters menu item and see if that gets you close enough that the normal calibration procedure will work.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>John<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Igor Perevyazko [mailto:i.perevyazko@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:40 AM<br><b>To:</b> jphilo@mailway.com; Andrew Leech<br><b>Cc:</b> RASMB List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [RASMB] XLI absorbance problem<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Dear All,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>We believe that we finally find out the origin of the problem: It seems that the wavelength calibration was completely out of range. We have made several wavelength calibrations assigning every time the 229 nm peak position to the very left point of the calibration curve. On the image attached you can see the new air-to air intensity spectra. We think that the very left peak should be related to the real 229 nm peak, however we cant do any further calibration process by the way mentioned above - diagnostic monitors appears with the following message: "DAB Wavelength out of range". </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Nevertheless, the wavelength scan of the KNO3 solution (c = 0.7 g/dl) gives us expected value of the optical density - 0.6 OD, but at the wrong wavelength - 272 nm (while it must be 302 nm). If you have any further suggestions regarding this problem please let me know. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>The low intensities in UV area obviously related with the problems of the lamp and/or absorbance optical scheme. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Best regards</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Igor </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:53 PM, John Philo <<a href="mailto:jphilo@mailway.com" target="_blank">jphilo@mailway.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>Well actually I have to disagree that Igor's counterbalance scan is fine,<br>because I think it proves that the radial calibration is incorrect. The<br>outer edge should be at 7.15 cm, but it appears to be at ~7.10 instead.<br>However I don't think that can explain the main problem we have been<br>discussing.<br><br>The fact that the radial scan Igor sent on Saturday shows two meniscus peaks<br>I think disproves the hypothesis that the instrument is scanning the<br>reference channel twice (no data from the sample channel). I had been<br>thinking that perhaps the lamp pulse was somehow lasting so long that light<br>was going through both channels with each pulse, but I think this scan also<br>throws out that idea.<br><br>I agree that most of Igor's observations suggest that the wavelength is far<br>off or even that essentially white light is coming through. However the<br>radial intensity scans Igor sent early on seem to show that the wavelength<br>selection is working (but again the intensities are too similar for sample<br>and reference). The radial scan data show the expected sharp meniscus peaks,<br>which seems to rule out a major malfunction with the slit assembly. Overall<br>I can't come up with any hypothesis consistent with all the data Igor has<br>given us.<br><br>What does seem clear to me is that even the collected wisdom of this group<br>can't come up with any quick fix, or one that won't require messing with<br>parts not normally serviced by end-users, and thus it appears this problem<br>will require a Beckman service call to resolve. The best test to convince<br>Beckman that the instrument is out of spec is to scan one of the Beckman<br>absorbance standard solutions.<br><span style='color:#888888'><br><span class=hoenzb>John</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: RASMB [mailto:<a href="mailto:rasmb-bounces@list.rasmb.org">rasmb-bounces@list.rasmb.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Leech<br>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:57 AM<br>To: <a href="mailto:i.perevyazko@gmail.com">i.perevyazko@gmail.com</a><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:rasmb@list.rasmb.org">rasmb@list.rasmb.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [RASMB] XLI absorbance problem<br><br>Hi all,<br><br>Perhaps there could be a problem with the wavelength drive in the affected<br>XL/I - if the drive rod is not working properly this would account for the<br>fact that the monochromator was ok in the other machine. Tom's suggestion<br>should show this up.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Andrew<br><br><br>On 24/02/2015 13:46, Laue, Thomas wrote:<br>> Hi-<br>> I suggest you take a wavelength scan on an empty hole and send along those<br>results. The original intensity scans showed there was no (or very little)<br>difference in intensity between the sample and reference sectors. This would<br>be true if the wavelength were being reported incorrectly. The counterweight<br>scan looks fine (though I agree that the intensity seems low), you can see<br>the slight difference in the size of the holes. This would indicate that the<br>timing and radial position calibration are OK.<br>> Best wishes,<br>> Tom<br>> ________________________________________<br>> From: RASMB [<a href="mailto:rasmb-bounces@list.rasmb.org">rasmb-bounces@list.rasmb.org</a>] on behalf of Curth<br>> [<a href="mailto:curth.ute@mh-hannover.de">curth.ute@mh-hannover.de</a>]<br>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:11 AM<br>> To: Andrew Leech<br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:rasmb@list.rasmb.org">rasmb@list.rasmb.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [RASMB] XLI absorbance problem<br>><br>> Hi Andrew,<br>><br>> if I do an intensity scan of the counterbalance with our XL-I in<br>> continuous mode, I get similar intensities. In step mode, however, the<br>> intensities are much higher. So, if it was performed in continuous<br>> mode, the scan of the counterbalance looks fine to me.<br>><br>> Best wishes,<br>><br>> Ute<br>><br>> --<br>>> Prof. Dr. Ute Curth<br>>> Hannover Medical School<br>>> Research Core Unit for Structural Analysis, OE 8830 Carl-Neuberg-Str.<br>>> 1<br>>> 30625 Hannover<br>>> Germany<br>><br>>> Tel.:+49-511-5329372<br>>> Fax :+49-511-5325966<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> RASMB mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:RASMB@list.rasmb.org">RASMB@list.rasmb.org</a><br>> <a href="http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org" target="_blank">http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org</a><br>><br><br>--<br>Dr Andrew Leech * Laboratory Head<br>Technology Facility * Molecular Interactions Laboratory<br>Department of Biology (Area 15) * Tel : +44 (0)1904 328723<br>University of York * Fax : +44 (0)1904 328804<br>Wentworth Way, York YO10 5DD * Email : <a href="mailto:andrew.leech@york.ac.uk">andrew.leech@york.ac.uk</a><br>EMAIL DISCLAIMER: <a href="http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm" target="_blank">http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>RASMB mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RASMB@list.rasmb.org">RASMB@list.rasmb.org</a><br><a href="http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org" target="_blank">http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>