Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Is this a typo? Should "mm" be "cm"

Posted by skoch3 on 30 May 2009 at 04:28 GMT


As noted by "Strauss" in the comments, these dimensions do not make sense. It appears to me that maybe the dimensions should be 2.3 cm x 2.3 cm x 4 cm ???

No competing interests declared.

RE: Is this a typo? Should "mm" be "cm"

strauss replied to skoch3 on 02 Jun 2009 at 16:04 GMT

If it were cm rather than mm then the height of the 1ml fluid in the wells would be only about 4.5mm. Which would make the optical coupling equivalent to butt coupling two thin flapt plates on their thin edges. Moreover when you consider that the base of the inner cuvette is presumbaly 1.5mm above the base of the outer cuvette the coupling is reduced further.

So while that fixes the geometry problem it raises new questions or at least issues the paper should have discussed.

additionally it does not answer the issues with 1) evaporation 2) chemical coupling through the now even larger open tops, 3) prevention of inner cuvette motion.

No competing interests declared.