256 vs. 1024 channels Hmmmmmm

Rosson, Dan RossonD at MLHS.ORG
Thu Mar 21 07:39:04 EST 2002


Joseph:

I'm a Flow novice, a Flower child, but I was wondering about your factor of
4 myself. However, now that I have read your answer below, I thought I would
add that I am presently running a FAScan with an HP and Lysis II and the
file sizes are just a 2 fold difference in this system too. Did you get the
factor of 4 by dividing 1024 by 256?

As they say, my two peaks worth.

Sincerely,

Dan Rosson

Dan Rosson Ph.D.
Lankenau Institute of Medical Research
100 Lancaster Ave.
Wynnewood, PA 19096
www.limr.org.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Webster [mailto:J.Webster at centenary.usyd.edu.AU]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:37 PM
To: cyto-inbox
Subject: Re: 256 vs. 1024 channels Hmmmmmm



Many thanks to all those who showed me the bullet hole in my shoe...

A few days ago I wrote:
> > .... but remember that a 1024-channel data file is four times
> > bigger than the same data in 256 channels.

After a prompt from Mario, I checked this morning and that statement
is wrong!
I remember a factor of four in the (good old?) days of HP computer
and LYSYS II, but had never bothered to check that change in newer
computers.

Testing this morning, my 256-channel file was 72078 bytes while the
same data (test pulses) in 1024-channel was 142078 bytes, or about
double the file size.
Just to confuse matters though, the Mac file system uses 130Kb and
195Kb respectively for the same two files on a 2Gb disk....

Now the accuracy of my memory is quite a different matter... ;~)
Anyone still running a FACScan with LYSIS?

Joseph.



More information about the Cytometry mailing list