Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Biotech / Medical : Caprius(CAPR), Breast MRI(former ANMR/MAMO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James L. Fleckenstein who wrote (2139)	11/12/1997 6:31:00 PM
From: luis a. garcia	Respond to of 2615

Dc Fleckenstein the resonance difference between .5 and 1.5 is roughly 75 hz to 225 Hz and what I think I am hearing is that if you could receive and decode that signal dig it out of the noise whatever then you could realize the algorithm. At todays state of the art I think it is possible to have the technique to do it. the specialist says homogeneity is more important than field strength and I cans see that provided the signal is captured. There is a system upgrade Q198 and so RSNA may offer you status on that and whether it will address the fat supression issue..or not. I will try and get additional information. Also it seems to say the phase difference and resonance or resonance and hence phase difference varies with spatial distance and intensity from the pulse and that would indicate you can pick up the difference away from the source better than at the source of the Rf emission... it seems there is a lot to chew on this issue. Higher field is costly and that brings in another issue which is one thing is to do whole body and quite another to do 17 cc's... yes the proof is in the pudding and its taking time to bake but I am not convinced as you that it won't get done. luis