X-ray machine from 1896 compared to modern version - Polidicks

[quote=BBC] [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51690000/jpg/_51690158_xrayhand.jpg[/img] The image made by the antique equipment was markedly blurrier than that by a modern machine Scientists have dusted off X-ray equipment dating from shortly after the discovery of the rays in 1895, in order to put it through its paces. Researchers from the same Dutch town where the system was originally built used it to produce striking images that belie its simplicity and age. The team said the images required a radiation dose to the subject some 1,500 times higher than a modern X-ray. Details of the research were published reported in the journal Radiology. The original system was developed by high school director H J Hoffmans and local hospital director Lambertus Theodorus van Kleef from Maastricht in the Netherlands. Following a publication by X-ray discoverer Wilhelm Roentgen just weeks before, the pair built their device from parts found at the high school and used it for anatomical imaging experiments. The machine ended up in a warehouse in Maastricht and was unearthed last year for a history programme on television. Then Gerrit Kemerink of Maastricht University Medical Center decided to put the equipment to the test against a modern system. "To my knowledge, nobody had ever done systematic measurements on this equipment, since by the time one had the tools, these systems had been replaced by more sophisticated ones," said Dr Kemerink. The team carefully recreated the experimental conditions that the machine's inventors would have used. Given that a high radiation dose might be required to carry out the tests, the team obtained a hand from a cadaver as their imaging subject - rather than the "young lady's hand" listed in Hoffmans and van Kleef's notes. Within a year of the rays' discovery they had become both a medical and theatrical showpiece, and the first indications arose that extensive exposure could be harmful. As a result, part of the race in X-ray science has been produce better images with less radiation exposure. The team accordingly found that using a modern detector, a radiation dose 10 times higher was required from the antiquated system when compared to a modern one. Using a photographic plate and the same imaging conditions Hoffmans and van Kleef used, a dose 1,500 times higher was required. What is more, the X-rays exited the machine over a broad area, leading to blurry images. But putting the equipment to the test was evidently reward enough for the authors. "Our experience with this machine, which had a buzzing interruptor, crackling lightning within a spark gap, and a greenish light flashing in a tube, which spread the smell of ozone and which revealed internal structures in the human body was, even today, little less than magical," they wrote. [/quote] Source: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12745194[/url]

What's the diffrent? The old have more brightness. [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] And blurrier

[QUOTE=tomatmann;28651522]What's the diffrent? The old have more brightness. [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] And blurrier[/QUOTE] And it took 1,500 times as much radiation as a modern x-ray. Sounds like a lot.

Well I don't know much about x-rays. I am not an Scientist in that sub area.

Holy shit, I didn't even know they could do that. I mean, this was a culture where hanging black men on your way home from work was not only regular, but cool. And then when you get home you slap your wife when she tries to greet you.

[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;28651814]Holy shit, I didn't even know they could do that. I mean, this was a culture where hanging black men on your way home from work was not only regular, but cool. And then when you get home you slap your wife when she tries to greet you.[/QUOTE] This was in the Netherlands.

[QUOTE=tomatmann;28651636]Well I don't know much about x-rays. I am not an Scientist in that sub area.[/QUOTE] "not an scientist"

[QUOTE=tomatmann;28651636]Well I don't know much about x-rays. I am not an Scientist in that sub area.[/QUOTE] It doesnt take a scientist to read an article.

Thanks Marie Curie. Your discovery was truly glowing. May your radiant image shine forever.

Why is there never videos of these tests in action? I want to see magical lightning and green glows too.

[QUOTE=Sparkwire;28651859]This was in the Netherlands.[/QUOTE] So the Netherlands were more advanced than America at the time? That's pretty cool.

[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;28659503]So the Netherlands were more advanced than America at the time? That's pretty cool.[/QUOTE] Proud to be Dutch :v:

[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;28659503]So the Netherlands were more advanced than America at the time? That's pretty cool.[/QUOTE] cool factoid: nederland was the place where the first microscope was created

[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;28659503]So the Netherlands were more advanced than America [B]at the time[/B]? That's pretty cool.[/QUOTE] We still are. :colbert:

[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;28651814]Holy shit, I didn't even know they could do that. I mean, this was a culture where hanging black men on your way home from work was not only regular, but cool. And then when you get home you slap your wife when she tries to greet you.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you on about

[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;28651814]hanging black men on your way home from work was not only regular, but cool.[/QUOTE] so that's not cool anymore? damn I gotta rethink my day tomorrow

The 1896 x-ray is still pretty remarkable for late 19th century technology.

[QUOTE=tomatmann;28651522]What's the diffrent? The old have more brightness. [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] And blurrier[/QUOTE] The old one had shitty imaging and created instant cancer. :v:

[QUOTE=Latency;28652130]Thanks Marie Curie. Your discovery was truly glowing. May your radiant image shine forever.[/QUOTE] Röntgen discovered X-rays.