Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 71
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
One birthday today, congrats!
Daniel Davis (54)


Next birthdays
05/29 Zonalklism (34)
05/29 Dr Hankenstein (68)
05/30 Quantum Singularity (47)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Radiation
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Homemade X-ray machine question

Move Thread LAN_403
Proud Mary
Tue May 03 2011, 09:24PM
Proud Mary Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
James wrote ...

Even 4mA at 70 kVp is dim enough on a fast intensifier screen to need a long exposure with a sensitive camera.

I wouldn't call 0.1 or 0.2 sec 'a long exposure.'


This is a science forum, where a knowledge of exceptions is to be respected, and where doubtful propositions can expect to be queried.


Back to top
James
Tue May 03 2011, 10:43PM
James Registered Member #3610 Joined: Thu Jan 13 2011, 03:29AM
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 506
Who is managing 0.1 or 0.2 second exposures using a digital camera to image a film intensifier screen? My own experience suggests 10-20 seconds at 4mA for a reasonable exposure, FAR longer than film. The folks using rectifier tubes have mentioned exposure times in the range of minutes.

.1-.2 is around the exposure range for a proper digital x-ray sensor using a 4mA dental head as intended to image a few teeth. The little dental sensors go for around $2K, while the larger size medical diagnostic type my friend's veterinary clinic has was US$80K, a bit out of the typical hobbyist budget. They use a 250 mA rotating anode head with that.

I have to make some assumptions or generalizations, unless I want to write a novel here.
Back to top
hsieh
Wed May 04 2011, 12:16AM
hsieh Registered Member #1412 Joined: Thu Mar 27 2008, 04:07PM
Location: Taipei Taiwan
Posts: 278
James wrote ...

100kV sounds reasonable for a dental machine, but in practice it was probably operated at 60-70kVp. Usually the voltage is adjustable. For a larger general radiography machine utilizing a rotating anode tube, 300kVp is possible, but 100-125 kVp is much more typical. 300mA peak current is not too unusual.


What I see at that time is not a dental X-ray machine.It is an X-ray machine for chest X-Ray.

So if I'm planning to experiment with 50KV and 2x2 rectifier vacuum tube, what should I do to shield the x-ray emit by 2X2?

I'm also curious about that if "glow in the dark" materials can detect X-ray.
Back to top
magnet18
Wed May 04 2011, 12:39AM
magnet18 Registered Member #3766 Joined: Sun Mar 20 2011, 05:39AM
Location: 1307912312 3766 FT117575 Indiana State
Posts: 624
chest X-ray machines should be able to take pictures just like a dental one, if anything it should be more powerful, and bigger is always better wink
Back to top
James
Wed May 04 2011, 12:43AM
James Registered Member #3610 Joined: Thu Jan 13 2011, 03:29AM
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 506
Chest x-rays will be general radiography, rotating anode tube, normally with an adjustable collimator for shaping the beam. Typically double the voltage and several times the current of a dental machine. Most of these machines I've seen are pretty similar to the rest.

Get some lead sheet, 1mm thick should be plenty adequate for 50 kVp x-rays. Form a box or can around whatever you have the tube enclosed in, real x-ray tubes are (almost?) always immersed in oil for both insulation and cooling.

I've seen reports of some glow in the dark materials responding to x-rays, but a rare earth intensifier works far better. I've seen film cassettes containing those sell for less than US$10 on ebay. There are a lot of surplus ones around since hospitals and clinics are starting to switch over to digital.
Back to top
hsieh
Wed May 04 2011, 04:32AM
hsieh Registered Member #1412 Joined: Thu Mar 27 2008, 04:07PM
Location: Taipei Taiwan
Posts: 278
James wrote ...

I've seen film cassettes containing those sell for less than US$10 on ebay. There are a lot of surplus ones around since hospitals and clinics are starting to switch over to digital.

I think it is difficult for me to get these things.In Taiwan,it is illegal to sell medical related things on Internet.And if I buy it on ebay,the shipping may be unacceptably high.

So finding alternatives seems to be the only way.

I have a box my father used to develop dental X-ray films before switch to digital.Maybe I can use it to develop my X-ray photos.
Back to top
Adam Munich
Wed May 04 2011, 04:53AM
Adam Munich Registered Member #2893 Joined: Tue Jun 01 2010, 09:25PM
Location: Cali-forn. i. a.
Posts: 2242
Maybe you could find someone to buy the cassete, rip out the intensifier screen and put that in one of those big yellow envelopes for you?
Back to top
James
Wed May 04 2011, 07:53AM
James Registered Member #3610 Joined: Thu Jan 13 2011, 03:29AM
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 506
That's what I was about to suggest as well. The screens themselves are just a sheet of stiff plastic, it's doubtful that anyone who saw one separately would have any idea what it was.

Also if your father is a dentist, he may be able to legitimately get some cassettes from a place that sells used medical equipment locally, if there is such a place there.
Back to top
radhoo
Wed May 04 2011, 10:51AM
radhoo Registered Member #1938 Joined: Sun Jan 25 2009, 12:44PM
Location: Romania
Posts: 701
Grenadier wrote ...

Maybe you could find someone to buy the cassete, rip out the intensifier screen and put that in one of those big yellow envelopes for you?
This is what I did, just that the seller didn't want to remove the metallic cassette even if I still payed the full price, so I had to have them shipped to someone in the US, this person took them apart and mailed me the screens by regular mail. A bit too much hassle, but in the end got what I needed.
Back to top
hsieh
Wed May 04 2011, 12:54PM
hsieh Registered Member #1412 Joined: Thu Mar 27 2008, 04:07PM
Location: Taipei Taiwan
Posts: 278
After asking a lot of stores,I finally bought a box of B&W photographic paper.

The same store also sells the chemicals necessary to develop it.But I have to buy a large bottle if I want to buy it.So I didn't.

I ask some local photo studio if I can buy small amount of those chemicals,but they say they no longer develop B&W photos.

I remember reading that it is possible to develop photo using easy to obtain things in a book edition of MacGyver story,Is this really possible?

Or my father may have some unused chemicals for develop X-ray film.Can I use them to develop photographic paper?
I don't want to use my father's x-ray films because they are very small(about 3CM*3CM)

I found this.Will this work? Link2
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.