Summary:
Inverse detection on non-inverse probes works just fine if you are willing
to sacrifice some sensitivity, and tolerate poorer water suppression and
possibly
somewhat poorer lineshape. Many people seemed to like using the QNP probes
for both regular and inverse experiments. Most mentioned HMQC and HMBC,
but fewer mentioned HSQC. Is this because this experiment does not work as
well on a non-inverse probe? Or do many still prefer HMQC over HSQC? (I
prefer
HSQC.)
The general concensus was that gradients are a good investment, even for a
300.
Many users are running very fast HMQCs HMBCs and COSYs with good results,
providing that they have enough sample. The gradient HMBC is supposed to
be especially good.
Display question: The display monitor on our AMX500 (X32, CPU3) is starting
to get a bit funky.
For a USED monitor Bruker Canada wants about 3 times the price of a brand
new Sony
Trinitron monitor of comparable size. (I did have an offer of a free monitor
from Bruker U.K., but the
shipping would be a pain.) Since we hope to upgrade this computer before
long, I don't want
to shell out a lot of money on a monitor, but my technician is starting to
grumble about it.
Has anyone tried using a standard multi-sync PC type monitor with this
computer? I'm
not sure if the scan rates, etc correspond exactly to a P.C. standard or
not.
Cheers,
-Kirk
Kirk Marat, Ph.D. NMR Facility Manager
Dept. of Chemistry and Prairie Regional NMR Centre
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, CANADA
ph. (204) 474-6259 FAX (204) 474-7608
kirk_marat@umanitoba.ca