Does this mean the blue line marked in your image is 43.85mm tall?
(I am back in the lab tomorrow to take some measurements as well)
230mm (z-coordinate of top of plate carrier) - 186.15 (z-coordinate of plate carrier site)
= equivalent to =
130mm (z-height of plate carrier) - 86.15 (z-coordinate of plate carrier site from z-height of deck)
Furthermore, I have asked this question before but haven’t found the time to look into this in more detail but this seems like a good place to bring it up again:
Is there a way to include automatic adjustment of the true plate position based on the carrier site skirt height?
If the dz of a plate is less than ~6mm, plates’ containers/wells will sit on the skirt and not on the plates ‘walls’. As a result, all wells’ absolute well location will higher than expected which endangers tips to crash when they are targeted for the bottom of a well.
I believe this would not have been a problem so far because only plate carriers with a skirt have been used and I’d assume everyone checks plate dimensions in the testing phase of a new automation run.
But with the integration of MFX modules, shakers and temp-control modules now, most of these don’t have a skirt, this skirt height becomes an issue: When moving a plate from a plate carrier with skirts to a module without a skirt, and performing liquid transfer actions on both sites the absolute well z locations will be different for the same plates.