skin deep?

com...

ew

es,

is

The trouble with aortic aneurysms is that they are symptonless until they start dissecting.

Once that has started, the the mortality rate is about 20% per hour. The half hour wait until you called an ambulance wasn't a good idea.

A useful clue is that the pain is synchronised with the heart-beat - each heart-beat tears the tissue a little more.

One of our friends survived a dissecting aoretic aneurysm, and he was a mine of information.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The trouble with aortic aneurysms is that they are symptonless until they start dissecting.

Once that has started, the the mortality rate is about 20% per hour. The half hour wait until you called an ambulance wasn't a good idea.

A useful clue is that the pain is synchronised with the heart-beat - each heart-beat tears the tissue a little more.

One of our friends survived a dissecting aoretic aneurysm, and he was a mine of information.

============================================== The problem is, Bill, that one such as myself didn't know what it was and all the warnings published are for chest pain, not back pain, even though it is in the thorax. Eventually I'd decided it was probably heart attack related (wrong) and called for help based on that assumption. I've got some mild pain right now in the same place, right between the shoulder blades, but I'm fairly confident it is muscular and will ease if I lay down for a while; which I shall now do.

It's a single-lens 3D technique that uses a computer generated phase plate. I haven't gone through the math, but I assume it uses the very large amount of redundant phase data in your average image in a more intelligent way.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

The reason I ask, I read a profile of Nathan Myrvold's outfit, sort of an idea lab. They were brainstorming with some doctors, a surgeon requested a x-ray scanner, which could image subcutaneously. The physics team replied "No problemo!"

I thought, huh? It's not a matter of focus, it's a matter of transmission/reflection.

So I thought I'd present the question to this forum.

-- Rich

It's a more practical problem. Focus isn't a problem, nor transmission/reflection either. In principle, if you make a tangential radiography, you may get what you want. It'd be something similar to a mamography. The problem is that you want the image on the fly. This means that you can't use any film: they need processing. So you have to rely on detectors. Amorph sylicon detectors are usually used for imaging during radiotherapy, but they have low resolution (and you need at least tenths of mm) and sensitivity (and you need to discriminate soft tissue from soft tissue).

There is a no less important problem. If I understand what you want, the surgeon would be working at the same time that images are taken. That means that the surgeons and nurses would receive a significant amount of radiation.

worst

with=20

kept

S&*(, damn, f&(*! If i had my brain in gear properly once, i would have=20 known that without having to be told. I do know enough about various=20 pain / pain blocking brain receptors to have seen it.

Metaphorically smacks self on forehead. I just hate having "Damn, that = is=20 so obvious" moments.

I just had dental xrays for the first time in years (couldn't afford it, other medical bills) Nice low energy CCD imaging system. Fantastic images right into a PC with USB. I was so stunned I forgot to ask the resolution.and bit depth. Looked better then the old film, had more contrast. Since the sensor is in the mouth, maybe 1 inch long, a 3/4" wide, and 1/8" thick, how did they make the readout electronics for the CCD so it didn't latch up?

Steve

Self-immolation is not required, though. I didn't know this until I did talk with hospice nurses.

/BAH

Simple... do you have your tetanus shots? ;-)

Tim

worst

with=20

close=20

kept

have=20

that is=20

Well fiddle-dee-dee; i have already risen from my own ashes. >8-))