I may have the opportunity to use a much higher framerate camera in the future. Please leave suggestions for things that are fairly transparent to x-rays (no metal, or very thin small internal parts), and demonstrates the utility of high speed capture (typically things breaking, bouncing, shattering). The last requirement is that the object be very small, just 1 to 2 cm long. Since learning about ptycography, I may try that as well since x-ray ptycography is one of the real world uses for these sensors.
Here's an interesting one, if the equipment is sensitive enough you could test if you can see the difference in air densities as a .22 caliber bullet passes by.
Not only is this incredibly cool, but it bridges my knowledge of x-ray (CR/XR, in this case, DR) even further. I work for a medical imaging company and we actually sell and promote our digital radiography machine that will do this, but for humans (at a much, much slower rate, but enough to be useful in medical diagnostics).
I had never considered an application of use outside of medicine.
So, my day is now accounted for. In addition to "overdue training" on things I already know, I will be youtubing all the x-ray, MRI, ultrasound fun things that you would never see otherwise.
I got nervous watching him put his hand in front of the machine.
You don't want to subject yourself needlessly to ionizing radiation. A little here and there is probably okay at small doses and for valid reasons, but it all adds up over a lifetime.
He didn't mention how much X-ray radiation this puts out in the first half or so of the video. I worry it's more than a medical photograph as it's continuous high sample rate video, but I'm not an expert. Would be curious to know.
Also curious about the shielding and leaking.
Don't damage your DNA if you don't have to. This is a cool, semi-educational video. I don't think I'd take the same risk though.
> He didn't mention how much X-ray radiation this puts out in the first half or so of the video. I worry it's more than a medical photograph as it's continuous high sample rate video, but I'm not an expert. Would be curious to know.
> Also curious about the shielding and leaking.
If you'd watch the video the last part explains exactly that. The energy levels involved, how the beam is stopped, how backscatter is checked. He is definitely no dummy who just found an x-ray machine in a dump and just powered it up for clicks and giggles.
Be rest assured Ben’s previous job was in the medial imaging industry. While he worked on MRI machines rather than ionizing radiation, I think he’s very well aware of the dangers of X rays and has many projects dealing with ionizing radiation. There’s a lot of bad safety science YouTubers, Ben isn’t one of them :)
Funny thing: it’s actually rare to get radiation damage to human hands and feet since there’s not too much growing tissue there!
On the contrary, I was told stories in school that old IR doctors used to lose the hair on their hands after using the fluoro for years. The fingernails are also radiosensitive.
The main reason that X-rays of the hands and feet are usually very low risk is because the beam intensity (dose) required to penetrate the small amount of tissue is very low. Because the video uses a high-sensitivity detector (photon counter) the dose may be even less than usual. However, it would still be a regulatory violation if you did it in a hospital.
I think it's probably not true that it all adds up over a lifetime. That's the model that is widely used but there's some good evidence to suggest it's not accurate.
>I worry it's more than a medical photograph as it's continuous high sample rate video, but I'm not an expert. Would be curious to know.
Typical fluoro skin entrance exposure rate to go through someone's hand is on the order of 1-3 millisieverts per minute. With a more advanced detector (like this one) it may be lower, but increasing the frame rate or resolution will tend to require higher dose rate. The associated risk of skin cancer is quite small. But please be aware that unnecessary X-Ray imaging of living things is against the law in most jurisdictions.
I may have the opportunity to use a much higher framerate camera in the future. Please leave suggestions for things that are fairly transparent to x-rays (no metal, or very thin small internal parts), and demonstrates the utility of high speed capture (typically things breaking, bouncing, shattering). The last requirement is that the object be very small, just 1 to 2 cm long. Since learning about ptycography, I may try that as well since x-ray ptycography is one of the real world uses for these sensors.
Here's an interesting one, if the equipment is sensitive enough you could test if you can see the difference in air densities as a .22 caliber bullet passes by.
I wonder if you could blow some fine mesh aluminum/iron powder through a small whistle to see any of the airflow effects.
Spurious xray emission from triboelectric effect.
Phase change of various materials changing absorption characteristics.
Capacitor discharge.
I thought the insect breathing work at the synchrotron was cool https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1078008
Hummingbird
This may be a bit hard, but jumping insects like locusts and crickets?
That's wild they have a high speed 8K photon counting device for x-rays now. It's not the one he tested but it's the latest one the company has https://www.dectris.com/en/detectors/x-ray-detectors/eiger2/
It's also neat how he describes how the acquisition works: 32bit tiffs, pci card, real-time linux, and a special rack-mounted server.
Not only is this incredibly cool, but it bridges my knowledge of x-ray (CR/XR, in this case, DR) even further. I work for a medical imaging company and we actually sell and promote our digital radiography machine that will do this, but for humans (at a much, much slower rate, but enough to be useful in medical diagnostics).
I had never considered an application of use outside of medicine.
So, my day is now accounted for. In addition to "overdue training" on things I already know, I will be youtubing all the x-ray, MRI, ultrasound fun things that you would never see otherwise.
Thank you OP!
Please post a link to your YT channel so we all can take part in the fun.
A Motif interface from the early 90s at about 10:00 in the video. That X-Ray detector has probably a very long history.
One of the most underrated channels on YouTube.
I got nervous watching him put his hand in front of the machine.
You don't want to subject yourself needlessly to ionizing radiation. A little here and there is probably okay at small doses and for valid reasons, but it all adds up over a lifetime.
He didn't mention how much X-ray radiation this puts out in the first half or so of the video. I worry it's more than a medical photograph as it's continuous high sample rate video, but I'm not an expert. Would be curious to know.
Also curious about the shielding and leaking.
Don't damage your DNA if you don't have to. This is a cool, semi-educational video. I don't think I'd take the same risk though.
> He didn't mention how much X-ray radiation this puts out in the first half or so of the video. I worry it's more than a medical photograph as it's continuous high sample rate video, but I'm not an expert. Would be curious to know.
> Also curious about the shielding and leaking.
If you'd watch the video the last part explains exactly that. The energy levels involved, how the beam is stopped, how backscatter is checked. He is definitely no dummy who just found an x-ray machine in a dump and just powered it up for clicks and giggles.
Be rest assured Ben’s previous job was in the medial imaging industry. While he worked on MRI machines rather than ionizing radiation, I think he’s very well aware of the dangers of X rays and has many projects dealing with ionizing radiation. There’s a lot of bad safety science YouTubers, Ben isn’t one of them :)
Funny thing: it’s actually rare to get radiation damage to human hands and feet since there’s not too much growing tissue there!
>there’s not too much growing tissue there!
On the contrary, I was told stories in school that old IR doctors used to lose the hair on their hands after using the fluoro for years. The fingernails are also radiosensitive.
The main reason that X-rays of the hands and feet are usually very low risk is because the beam intensity (dose) required to penetrate the small amount of tissue is very low. Because the video uses a high-sensitivity detector (photon counter) the dose may be even less than usual. However, it would still be a regulatory violation if you did it in a hospital.
I think it's probably not true that it all adds up over a lifetime. That's the model that is widely used but there's some good evidence to suggest it's not accurate.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
>I worry it's more than a medical photograph as it's continuous high sample rate video, but I'm not an expert. Would be curious to know.
Typical fluoro skin entrance exposure rate to go through someone's hand is on the order of 1-3 millisieverts per minute. With a more advanced detector (like this one) it may be lower, but increasing the frame rate or resolution will tend to require higher dose rate. The associated risk of skin cancer is quite small. But please be aware that unnecessary X-Ray imaging of living things is against the law in most jurisdictions.
I've wondered how much the average X-ray dosage dropped since they stopped using film and switched to detector-based imaging. Anyone know?