Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > Products and Vendor Discussion > Molecular Biology Products and Vendors > Bad Product/Service? Post Here
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Leica waterbaths are horrible

Leica waterbaths are horrible - Bad Product/Service? Post Here

Leica waterbaths are horrible -


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-23-2009, 10:36 PM
Pipette Filler
Points: 48, Level: 1 Points: 48, Level: 1 Points: 48, Level: 1
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Leica waterbaths are horrible



I've had bad experiences with Leica waterbaths. To their credit, the vendor has replaced the defective units, but I had no less that 4 wtarebaths go bad within 3 months of purchase.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-28-2009, 01:55 PM
Pipette Filler
Points: 218, Level: 4 Points: 218, Level: 4 Points: 218, Level: 4
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Leica waterbaths are horrible

Have you tried the LabArmor bead bath instead? Check this out, labarmor.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
horrible , leica , waterbaths


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stereo - microscope Leica MZ6 tamasflex Confocal - Microscopy Imaging Techniques 0 03-03-2010 12:59 PM
what´s the difference between leica sp5 and sp1 netsu Confocal - Microscopy Imaging Techniques 0 11-12-2009 04:59 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.11239 seconds with 16 queries