Alaris 8000 Service Manual
Eustolia Pennycuff
To call for tech support or not to call for tech support? For many biomedical professionals, that is the question. While tech support will surely be able to help solve your issue, the convenience of being able to quickly fix your equipment on the spot is hard to ignore.
This error, signified with the code 200.5040, results when the two units, one being the 8015 Point-of-Care unit and the other one of the attached modules, cannot interface due to a difference in the firmware.
Contact the account of the unit you are working on to determine what version firmware the account is running. If any of the units do not match the version the hospital or account is running, then they must be flashed to match. In general, any 9.1x version firmware will run with any 9.1x or lower firmware, but a 9.3x may not run with a 9.1x. Software 9.3x must run with 9.3x, and so on.
This error code, 600.6835, is not listed in any of the recent service manuals but can be seen from time to time. The process for verifying this error is similar to the one above but requires a deeper dig into the software.
Always take notes when on the phone with tech support. Taking detailed notes is one of the most important ways to handle support issues quickly and efficiently. When performing a step or test sequence,having detailed notes takes the stress out of remembering the details of conversations and makes it easier to ensure the guidance given is followed in its entirety. Also, note-taking is a really good way to capture every detail for future use.
For over 20 years, OR Today has provided perioperative and SPD professionals with up-to-date news and information about their profession. The magazine aims to educate readers about new guidelines, techniques, and equipment, as well as practical information for career building, problem-solving and overall well-being.
I am looking to rescan all of my slides and negatives. I originally used my flatbed scanner, but they all seem to be soft. This time I plan on using my Nikon D750 and 105 mm macro lens on my tripod with an extension arm. I have looked at several film molders and have narrowed it down to 3.
Right now I am leaning towards the EFH. I like the Sunray, but it is out of stock for awhile and I have heard it gets very hot. With the other solutions, a light source is needed. I have watched reviews and one brought up the issue of color rendition with their light source. I have been looking at various LED light boxes/pads used mostly for tracing. They mention brightness, but not much in the way of color temperature or color rendition. One reviewer did a comparison with 4 different light sources and the Viltrox L116T light had excellent color. It is a video light and not a light box and would require some kind of holder be made as it is not flat.
What are your opinions on my 3 holder choices from your actual experience. I liked the Pixl-latr, but am concerned about all of the parts snapping together and the need to lift the cover to move the film. I have heard that all of the parts can come unsnapped while using. Once set up, I want to imit the possibility of disturbing frame alignment as I change to the next image to copy.
I own a small light pad that I use to preview chromes and negatives. It's a Kaiser Slimlite Plano Lightboard 2453. I don't use it for scanning and don;t know if this is a good product for that. But it's around $100. They also have larger units. In any case, I checked the light output to see how accurate the manufacturer's specs were. They came pretty close to 5000 Kelvin.
Short answer - Canoscan 9000F and its kin from other makers at around $200 do an OK job of scanning, expecially for web use. You need to be able to 'interface' it or other scanners with your computer, no longer a simple matter.
I'm a purely digital photographer so I know nothing about scanning film. But just out of curiosity, I looked up the solutions you posed. I also quickly browsed what film scanning techniques there are. Please correct me me if I'm (probably) wrong but from what I read, there are basically 3 types of solution:
Unless I've missed something (which I might well have), this discussion so far has focused on solutions 1 and 3. Solution 2 has IHMO hardly been mentioned. Solution 3 sees to me to be a very painstaking and time-consuming and process. If you have the dedication, patience and time, all power to you! then you have everything under your own control. If it was me, I'd investigate how some photographic labs could perhaps speed up the process according to you specifications.
Not sure what the point is here, i.e., why post? Flatbed scanners haven't seen any upgrades for years. Cheap lab scans are often no better than home scans--mainly because labs often use flatbeds; drum scans are superior but pricey. DSLR scanning offers speed and the ability to focus--both baked-in drawbacks of civilian-grade flatbeds capable of handling transparent material.
Solution 2 (dedicated film scanner) hasn't been touched on for four key reasons: scarcity, expense, learning curve and unavailability of repairs. For many people, true film scanners are still the go-to, best solution, but in terms of practicality they are fading more and more with each passing year. The good ones were all discontinued a decade or more ago, a factor which is far more significant than it is with most other photographic gear.
Film scanners are incredibly complex, high-precision electro-mechanical devices that are prone to mechanism breakdowns and proprietary circuit failures. Other than Nikon and Canon, the popular, quality units were made by brands long since defunct (Microtek/Polaroid, Konica/Minolta). This leaves many orphaned scanners that cannot be repaired, joined now by the Nikon/Canon scanners no longer supported for repair. While DIY service info can be found on tech sites for a few of the "hottest" models, the work isn't for the squeamish (raise your hand if you enjoy attacking surface mount FireWire chips with a soldering iron, opening chassis designed by Rubik, or cleaning front surface mirrors so fragile they're destroyed by breathing on them).
Then you have increasing difficulty with dependency on passe FireWire 400 connectivity, and proprietary software/drivers incompatible with current Mac/Windows OS (driver updates stopped with Leopard/Vista in many cases). There are workarounds and third party software alternatives, but they can be sub-optimal. After wrestling with that, you need time to learn the fine points of the software/hardware: getting the best results from film scanners is a black art not easily mastered. Depending on the individual scanner, the film size, and the processing options selected, each frame of film can take considerable hardware time and manual reworking time.
Finally you have the inflated second hand pricing, driven by increased demand for (but dwindling supply of) fully-functional classic film scanners. Smaller models that only handle 35mm are still borderline affordable, but medium format and larger units become increasingly risky (the highly-sought Nikon CoolScan 9000 changes hands for $2k - $3K, despite its high failure rate and distinct aversion to being shipped any distance). Some "pro" units that were only recently discontinued, like the Hasselblad/Imacon Flextights, can be found mint but at price of $10K or more.
Not as much as you'd think. The biggest hurdle with "film scanning by camera" is getting the physical setup sorted out. This can be daunting, but once the setup is nailed down the speed of use is vastly more efficient than dedicated film scanners. High resolution FX-sensor cameras can image the entire frame instantly, as opposed to film scanners which mechanically scan one to three rows of pixels at a time. A digital camera delivers familiar camera raw files without the odd specifications and proprietary software requirements of old scanners (you need to deal with the orange mask of color negative film and other film-specific details, but its doable).
Drawbacks of camera scanning involve lens limitations, increased complexity of scanning/stitching medium format and larger frames a section at a time for best quality, and arguably less precision with color processing (the best scanner software was debugged over years for optimal handling of film sources from specific scanner hardware, digital camera sensors and Lightroom aren't inherently optimized for film reproduction). But sooner rather than later, "camera scanning" will become the dominant method of digitizing film: dedicated scanners employ a technology no longer mfd or supportable, even if a big name wanted to revive the category (Pacific Image tried with a "new" 35/120 film scanner a few years ago, but teething problems dogged it badly and were never fully resolved).
At the professional and institutional (museum) level, a pile of money solves the scanning dilemma handily. Phase One will sell or rent you a super-high-end turnkey "camera scanning" solution involving a 50MP to 150MP medium format sensor, premium optics, custom stands/film holders/light source and proprietary, highly refined software. For a trifling purchase cost of $50K and up (way, way up).
c80f0f1006