 | Info
Sheets |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 | Out-
side |
| | | | |
|
| | | | | |
| Result: Searchterm 'ffe'
found in 134 messages |
| Result Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |
More Results:  Database (446) News Service (436) Resources (66) |
|
|
lau Moon
Tue. 31 Jul.18,
02:14
[Start of:
'custom all types of coils'
0 Reply]
 Category:
Coils
|
| custom all types of coils |
We are a professional large-scale manufacturer of all types of inductor coil, we can custom coil for sensor，wireless device,RF technology,rnFor the coils Features: rn1. Winding with self-bonding wire rn2. Winding different shapes as per your inquiry rn3. Meet your inquired inductance and resistance rn4. Windings are bond by a strong adhesive rnrnOur product including:air core coil,RF coil,receiver coil,wireless charge coil,transmitter coil,sensor coil,Electromagnetic Coil, miniature inductor coil,etc.rnrnAny coils inquiry pls contact me: latinolaucoil@hotmail.com
Any coils inquiry pls contact me: latinolaucoil@hotmail.com
|
| |  Reply to this thread
(login or register first) | |
Ken Bellone
Thu. 7 Jun.18,
19:52
[Reply (9 of 10) to:
'ARMRIT in California?'
started by: 'James Benitez'
on Wed. 4 Jan.12]
Category:
Organisations
|
| ARMRIT in California? |
Im not a fan of anyone being overly critical of one or the other. Personally, I'm an ARRT tech certified in R and MR. I know Jim Coffin was trying to get AMRIT off the griound decades ago, and i thought "no way is this joker going to get this to fly ". That's not to say that Jim is a joker, but I knew he was one guy fighting a monopoly.
Let me say that he's done a hell of a job. He's gained more traction than I ever expected. I've known a bunch of his techs here in NY and I have a pretty positive view of them. I presently work with one and he's one of the best techs I've worked with. I'd let him scan my own wife.
On the other hand, I've been the manager of outpatient MRI at a major medical center and I wouldn't let most of the techs scan my cat.
I don't think you NEED to have a radiography background to be a good MRI Tech, but the experience from a clinical perspective has made me a far more well rounded technologist, but that's just me. I would have hired a qualified AMRIT tech, but my hospital didn't allow it. FWIW, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, one of the country's premier cancer center will hire AMRIT techs.
Ultimately, it's the individual doing the scan that makes the difference. I do think ARRT Rad Techs doing MR should get certified within a fixed period of time.....ie 6 mos-1 year. I have witnessed while lot of "button pushers".
My personal above to anyone considering a career in the field, I would go the RT route, as it is more widely accepted AND what is missed in the discussion is that you are a lot more marketable because you have the opportunity to learn and perform other modalities. There's a caveat. If AMRIT is legal in your state and they're hiring, I wouldn't hesitate to go that route. I just think that ARRT affords you more options.
Both have good and bad techs
|
| | View the whole thread | | |
Math G
Fri. 30 Jun.17,
21:02
[Reply (10 of 12) to:
'90 excitation pulse vs 180 inversion pulse'
started by: 'Bjorn Redfors'
on Sat. 27 Jun.09]
Category:
Basics and Physics
|
| 90 excitation pulse vs 180 inversion pulse |
I will try an answer to this rather old tread, in case someone stumble upon this like me.
The phenomenon of "coherence" that produce transverse magnetization after a 90 RF pulse cannot be answered by classical mechanics, or any simple model that represents individual protons as precessing magnets in either the parallel/antiparallel direction with regards to the MRI magnetic field.
Rather, it is a phenomenon related to quantum mechanics and the effect of a RF field on a interacting group of particles with spins (not necessarily oriented as parallel/antiparallel, I might add, even under the effect of a magnetic field).
The simplest depiction, as I understand, would be to imagine a group of spins as literally rotating as a whole under the effect of the RF. After a certain time (corresponding to a 90 degree pulse), the net magnetization that was oriented parallel to the MRI magnetic field, is now oriented in the transverse plane, causing transverse magnetization and signal. If you further apply RF, the system will continue to rotate, shifting gradually toward an antiparralel orientation, losing transverse magnetization in the process.
Hope its clearer!
|
| | View the whole thread | | |
Desiree Dupuy
Sat. 3 Dec.16,
22:14
[Reply (2 of 3) to:
'Muscle shading in 3T Images'
started by: 'Travis Conley'
on Thu. 21 Oct.10]
Category:
Applications and Examinations
|
| Muscle shading in 3T Images |
Try running a B1 Map followed by Calibration. Set RF Drive mode to Optimized. This is supposed to optimize for your Patient. Supposed to reduce dielectric effect/shading for Lumbar and Abdomen.
You can find under GE Additional Abdomen Sequences.
Or you can run Ideal with Dixon technique. Turn on IN phase will give you T1 FS & IN Phase is you plane T1. I believe this takes care of the artifact.
|
| | View the whole thread | | |
Clifford Thornton
Thu. 30 Jun.16,
17:48
[Start of:
'Max. SAR per second - Whole Body (Normal, 1st Controlled, 2nd Control)'
0 Reply]
Category:
Safety
|
| Max. SAR per second - Whole Body (Normal, 1st Controlled, 2nd Control) |
Hello fellow imaging technologists & professionals!
I'm involved in the development of a new type of cardiovascular medical device.
This device employs MRI technology/scans to power, guide, and control the medical devices and their active elements.
I conducted some research into the following question, "How much x-ray energy is allowed within a human every sec from a MRI machine?"
With regards to SAR rates, I understand that these are the upper-limits for the various settings for a full-body scan:
Normal setting: Whole body SAR - 2
1st Level Controlled: Whole body SAR - 4
2nd Level Controlled: Whole body SAR - >4
Would you agree with these calculations that I performed, and if not, why? And what would be a better way to calculate this?
For WHOLE BODY SAR:
-SO IF IN NORMAL MODE FOR MRI, THE MAX. ALLOWABLE SAR IS "2" OVER A 6 MIN. PERIOD, THEN
-6 MIN. = 360 SECONDS
-2 / 360 = 0.00555
FOR 1ST LEVEL CONTROLLED:
-SO IF IN 1ST LEVEL CONTROLLED FOR MRI, THE MAX. ALLOWABLE SAR IS "4" OVER A 6 MIN. PERIOD, THEN
-6 MIN. = 360 SECONDS
-4/ 360 = 0.01111
Other questions -- What is the difference between normal setting, 1st conrolled and 2nd controlled?
What is the clinical purpose of these various settings?
Any insights that you would be willing to share in regards to the above would be greatly appreciated!
I was trained and registred as a diagnostic echocardiographer, specializing in cardiovascular ultrasound, therefore I need help with MRI information/specifications. I am now focusing on the medical device field, but this technology/device happens to be highly dependent on MRI technology.
Any help from the group would be greatly appreciated!!
Thanks & regards,
Clifford Thornton
|
| | Reply to this thread
(login or register first) | |
| |
| | Result Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | |
|
| |
 | Look
Ups |
| |
bottom
top
