What kVp/mAs do you use for this? How are you avoiding the artifacts seen from medical imaging? Curious, in school for CT in the medical field.

▲

kens 7 days ago | parent [-]

Lumafield does all the work; I just get the images :-) The data says 130 kV, 123µA. The whole scan took 21 hours: 1200 projections of 60 seconds each. I assume that they avoid artifacts by using a whole lot more radiation than medical imaging would permit.

▲

rylando 6 days ago | parent [-]

I’m assuming each image was taken with 123 microamperes? Or is that total dosage over the 21 hours? If it’s total that’s much less than medical dosage, but if it’s per image that’s a lot more!

Thanks for the info, how interesting!

(for those who don’t know, mAs = mA • seconds = milliampere seconds. It’s how Radiographers measure how much x-ray photos are being produced by the tungsten filament in an X-ray tube. kVp is kiloVoltage potential and it’s how we measure the speed and thus the penetration power of the X-rays. 130kvp is slightly more than the 120kvp used for an avg human chest radiograph)

	▲	kens 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I asked Jon Bruner at Lumafield for details: The scan was performed on our Neptune Microfocus scanner, configured with a 130 kV source. Current varies on this source depending on scan settings; in this case 123 µA. Each voxel in this scan is 12.8 microns; for smaller parts that we're able to move even closer to the X-ray source we can achieve 3-6 micron voxels. Compared to medical CT scans, this is much higher resolution--medical CT scans have voxels on the order of 0.5 to 1 mm! This is possible because we're able to apply much higher X-ray doses in industrial scans. Medical CT scans are typically on the order of 120 kV, at higher current but for much less time--perhaps a few seconds compared with minutes to hours for an industrial CT scan.
	▲	fecal_henge 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Any rational argument to use mAs instead of mC?