SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : Fonar - Where is it going?
FONR 18.560.0%Jan 9 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: WebDrone who wrote (10563)7/26/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: James L. Fleckenstein  Read Replies (1) of 19354
 
WebDrone-- I have not been scanned in a lunar but I sat in the chair. The image quality is clearly way behind what is needed for small tissue imaging. For many things that are invisible to xrays, such as cruciate ligamaent tears and scaphoid fractures of the wrist, it is quite good. There was a very nice paper that analyzed the cost and accuracy of the various MRI systems and they calculated the cost of the increment in diagnsostic capability when comparing various machines. It was quite interesting. We always say that you want the least SNR possible to answer the clinical question--any more is a waste. The problem comes when purists, like I can be, sneer at image quality on the basis of esthetics alone. I try to remember the alternative rationale (diagnosis) from time to time. I have been scanned at 0.064T and it was fine for showing my bone bruise which was inapparent on xrays. The image quality was far better at 1.5T but all 3 field strengths I looked at showed the lesion similarly well from a clinical viewpoint. For the dollar the lowest field was clearly the best--for aesthetic issues, the 1.5T was clearly the best. Now, as for Philips, I love their technology, but you and I are clearly reading different manuals. I am surprised an engineer would be reading a tutorial on basic biological applications anyway. Are you saying that you found the technical data well covered? That would be interesting. As for "soft" x-rays, surely you are joking. Are you talking about xeroradiography as a competition for MRI?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News