nanox x-ray - real or BS ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 10:13:30 am
content: Nanox is an Isreal is an x-ray comapany claiming new tech based on a MEMs X-ray source. There has already been quite a lot of controversy in investment circles, some going as far as saying they are the next TheranosSomething about this demo video just doesn't smell right to me.The biggest screen on video is showing Bloomberg - why?Apparently no roof on the x-ray room - risk of scattered x-raysNo sign of film badges or dosimitersRow of people sitting in front of computers not apparently doing anything to do with the demoEmphasis on how expensive x-ray tubes are because they use hot filaments... there is nothing inherently expensive about an x-ray tube - the cost is in the detectors, which they don't mention at all.No mention of why theirs is potentially better - pixel addressabilityPatent - quite old.https://patents.google.com/patent/US6674837B1/enAny thoughts ?

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 11:35:30 am
content: Quite like the idea of pixel X-ray generators and a single detector. If the end destination is always a single detector then wouldn't that allow for much smaller amount of shielding?Sure there's a gotcha in their somewhere.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 11:39:33 am
content: It sounds less absurd than getting x-rays from pulling sticky tape in a vacuum, and that turned out to be real.

author: sixtimesseven
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 12:04:46 pm
content: Well, you woudln't need a detector if you had an xray matrix? If one puts a lead collimator on the matix and powers on each after.One problem I would seee is that normal XRay detectors can have a global shutter while this thing scans and depending on the material and the xray power (I would assume rather low) you need stationary samples.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 12:10:06 pm
content: Although an addressable source may be useful in some cases, I can't see a source the size they are showing being any use for eliminating an array detector.

author: MadTux
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 02:55:02 pm
content: As long a no one has taken one of these X-ray machines apart and uploaded it to the internet, the can basically claim whatever they want.Could be the "completely fake" or "take normal x-ray machine and hype it up" method to get investors in and stock prices up and then go the classic exit scam route. Theranos almost worked out that way, but that bitch was too stupid to cash out in time, probably because she actually believed in the crap that she was talking about. Or because she was creedy as shit and wouldn't sell at a slight loss.Or it's really a new X-ray source, but why not market it as an new X-ray source instead of building a complete machine around it? Would make much more sense to sell patent rights or X-ray tubes to the big manufactures of CT-machines who have all the knowledge and technology for it than to develop your own first and probably mediocre machine yourself.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 03:06:36 pm
content: Googling, MIT did some work on using silicon for MEMS/NEMS cold cathode emitters and it does seem an iterative improvement over hot cathode tubes. Longer lifetime, lower brehmstrahlung, better mono-chromaticity leading to sharper images ... apart from the fast pulsing MIT claimed much the same features for it as NanoX and the fast pulsing is inherent in the close gate/grid proximity and thus low voltages. I'm not sure why they call it MEMS, since it's not really mechanical but if MIT does it I can't blame a commercial company for doing it.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 03:10:33 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 25, 2021, 03:06:36 pmI think MEMS is fine for anything where they are making topological shapes - e.g. in thermal imaging sensors, making thermally isolated sensing elements

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 03:17:22 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 25, 2021, 03:10:33 pmYeah, strictly speaking, MEMS do not necessarily have moving parts. So everytime they have shapes and structures that have a function other than forming electronic devices such as transistors, I guess you can call that MEMS.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 03:29:52 pm
content: Quote from: MadTux on January 25, 2021, 02:55:02 pmJust playing devil's advocate here ... but the design space does shift a bit when you have grid voltages of a couple 10s of volt instead of a couple kV, you can make everything more compact and switching is easier and faster.Lets say they can make a radiographic table with a couple dozen emitters and no mechanical positioning for the emitters (other than length wise movement along the patient) for near the same manufacturing cost as a traditional radiographic table with a single mechanically positioned emitter. That seems worth the R&D. They can sell basic versions which just replace the traditional table and software upgrades which take images from multiple angles for Tomosynthesis ... a poor man's CT.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 03:50:14 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 25, 2021, 10:13:30 amThere has to be a reason it says "Concept device" all the time.So this is a nice looking mockup with no function whatsoever.I guess that will work out the same with a nice Star Trek teleporter mockup.Believe it, when you can buy it

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 04:05:32 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 25, 2021, 03:29:52 pmBut can you generate a 50kVp X-ray from less than 50kV ?- My physics isn't good enough to know

author: MadTux
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 04:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 25, 2021, 04:05:32 pmUnless it's a microwave cavity linac for electrons, you need like 50kV acceleration volatage to get electrons fast enought to generate X-rays. Electrons from a 10eV linear accelerator will generate 10eV photons at best, which is something like 120nm UV light.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 04:24:10 pm
content: You connect 2V on a specifically made PN juncton, and it emits red light. You connect 5V on an other PN junction and it creates UV light. I guess if you connect 30KV on a PN junction, it would emit x-ray?I dont remember seeing to many silicon devices, that could handle that high voltages, because of breakdown.On the other hand it doesn't sound like Sci-fi to me, to make such a device. On the other hand I have no clue if this company made it or not.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 04:45:45 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 25, 2021, 04:05:32 pmYes, provided the target is moving towards the electron fast enough to make up the difference. 50keV is a relative velocity of approx 41% of C, so you aren't going to get there wiggling silicon MEMS beams, and I wouldn't want to be in the same neighborhood as any mechanical device energetic enough to do that even at microscopic scale (compare with XKCD's'relativistic baseball'thought experiment).

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 05:21:07 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 25, 2021, 04:05:32 pmNo, but simply not having to switch the grid in the kV range to pulse the beam alone is enough to change the design space. Multiple tubes with MEMS emitters can connect to one high voltage bus and require only low voltage for pulsing ... doing the same with traditional tubes would require independent high voltage switches per tube and even then pulsing as fast might be hard.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 06:28:29 pm
content: Maybe they generate a low energy electron, then it moves along a tiny little silicon 'diving board' that's electrostatically pulled back and then it's flung off at the target - sorta like twanging a ruler at school.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 07:02:41 pm
content: Nope. You couldn't do it with silicon MEMS beams as the tip would need to move at nearly 40% of C. The chip would need to be made of at leastScrithgrade unobtanium, and you'd need something of the order of an antimatter ion beam to etch it.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 07:12:24 pm
content: Quote from: Ian.M on January 25, 2021, 07:02:41 pmYeah but those twanging rulers movedreallyfast, just don't use the 'shatterproof' ones. Just saying.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 07:30:21 pm
content: Think of the environmental impact assessment for the Scrith wafer fab: "If containment is lost on the antimatter etchant tank, the expected impact is ablation of Continental North America, major coastline altering Tsunami damage to western Europe, West coast of Africa, and the Pacific rim, total loss of all satellites in near Earth orbits, and a high probability of triggering Fimbulwinter."No-one sane would want that fab any closer than the next planet over, and even that's too close for comfort!

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2021, 09:14:28 pm
content: They show externally the 40 kV and 1.5 mA for the picture of the hand. This could be a reasonable power level for sich a picture. The concept with cold cathod electron source is not absolutely new. However the conventional x-ray tube they showed in comparison with a rotating anode is a totally different power level: not some 60 -100 W for the small one they have, but more like 5-10 kW power level. A conventional X-Tube for low power is not necessary larger than their tube.I don't see a really large advantage of the multiple point source to move the source for the image - it may be helping with cooling the x-ray source. The image quality may get improved from a small spot size - not sure how much this compares to a conventional source. One still needs a large detector to get as much image from the given X-ray as possible. Moving the source is not an option as it would increase the radiation dose. So if at all this would be something for scanning technical samples, not medical.Looks like they are desparate for money, but I don't see a real hint for a clear hoax.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 02:11:14 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on January 25, 2021, 09:14:28 pmOK, one of the big problams with medical X-ray is scattering of the photons off bones. They use a thing called a Potter-Bucky diaphragm that has slightly tapered alternating wood and lead strips that "focus" towards the anode of the X-ray tube. This is placed right next to the film, and rocked by a motor so it doesn't make lines oon the film. Any photon that scatters off a bone will hit the side of the lead strip and be stopped. The theory is that only photons that have gone straight from the anode to the film can get through the diaphragm.Using mulitple sources and a kind of CAT scanner like algorithm might be able to do similar reduction of scattered photons, giving a sharper picture. A combination of multiple source locations and detector locations might be able to produce an image that had layers, like CAT slices. Of course, a smaller source spot will also improve image focus.Jon

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 05:01:57 am
content: Pretty convincing image in this paper:A Compact X-ray Generator Using a Nanostructured Field Emission Cathode and a Microstructured Transmission AnodeApparently this still requires 30 kV of anode bias, but the advantage is that you get characteristic X rays with narrow spectral peaks rather than a blast of broadband bremsstrahlung radiation. The characteristic peaks are only in the 10-12 keV neighborhood, but apparently that's enough to get the job done. They didn't mention the exposure/integration time, as far as I could tell.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 08:36:10 am
content: Using a thin film anode may produce a favorable X-ray spectrum, but this is limited to the cold cathode. The patents for this are even older.The shift they can produce with multiple cathodes on one chips is tiny - so not really much help in a sense to get a 3 D image. For a real 3 D image one needs vastly different angles.Multiple sources may help with cooling and it may be a way to choose different anode materials, kind of colored X-ray, though the extra contrast is likely limited.Much of the image quality depends on the detector side. Only for really fine details it needs a really tiny source spot. Here I see more of a problem with the solid state sources.

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 03:31:34 pm
content: The setup looks legit- lead glass an' all. They claim the big boys are lining up to invest, $60M of investment so far sounds impressive its really chunk change for the likes of Fuji and Foxconn. If it is for real GE, Siemens, Philips and Sharp etc. will be making them an offer they cant refuse and will find a way to buy them out ASAP. (I think GE has a private army- they're in league with Satan anyhow). The markets are confused about what they are selling- is it a new X-ray tube, CT method or yet another picture archiving and communication system with cloud access (wow cloud) system. Agfa hello-oh. So they are taking a kicking on their share price.I've not found anything showing the tube in action and measurements of input power and output flux. No technical demonstration of any value at all, so far.What ever your electron sourceis, you still need to collide zillions of electrons accelerated to say 100KeV at a hard target with 0.75% X-ray emission efficiency on a good day. So you have to dump 99% of your beam input power as heat. That's fixed by the laws of physics captain. New target, new source same old efficiency.At best its unclear - their white papers don't address the tech in any technical depth and are mostly examinations of why the world needs their product.Yes, the scotch-tape thing. Truly amazing- Amazon staff outlines burned into the warehouse walls and such. Just one more of the the indignities their drones have to endure. Bikini waxing sounds like it liberates gamma rays.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 04:16:32 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on January 26, 2021, 08:36:10 amThey are individually still all highly directional, so if you focus an array of them on a pinhole it's not like trying to do the same with say a large area LED where each point on its surface has a 90 degree emission angle.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 04:49:01 pm
content: This paper looks vaguely plausiblehttps://assets.website-files.com/5e2915c09270593d3940faad/5fc4ead407be113d6f7caf30_Hot%20Vs.%20Cold%20Cathode%20Technology%20Overview.pdfI think they still have the normal HV supply and anode, but they've swapped a hot cathode for an array of cold cathodes that can be controlled by a low voltage - I assume either having the cathode near ground and all the HV on the anode, or a -HV cathode with isolated control electronics sitting at the cathode potential.the CEO guy in the video does come over rather clulesss about the actual tech though.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 05:12:52 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 26, 2021, 04:49:01 pmAgreed. I dunno how this startup is structured, but usually you have one CTO who knows the tech very well and is there to talk about it. Letting the CEO talk about tech is weird. Unless there is actually no tech to talk about.

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 05:26:54 pm
content: There is a load of research on cc X-ray sources. But megaliths like GE, Phillips and Siemens never got interested enough?https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/07/why-nano-x-imaging-stock-dropped-22-in-december/

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 05:29:35 pm
content: Reel

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2021, 05:38:03 pm
content: If they can make it work, the fixed multiple emitter setup with Tomosynthesis seems a bigger selling point than the cold cathode tubes.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2021, 11:05:19 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2021, 05:12:52 pmAs of January 2021 they have a new CTO...

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2021, 12:15:21 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 26, 2021, 05:38:03 pmhttps://www.reuters.com/article/nano-x-imaging-stocks-int/short-seller-muddy-waters-takes-aim-at-nano-x-imaging-after-citron-idUSKCN26D1VOThe CTO, CMO (Medical? Marketting?) are new (Jan 2021) also a few recent hires at VP level. The CEO talks in the video about making 1000's in 2021 and connecting them to the cloud (he previously started a company that makes cloud connected video speculums). Are they planning on processing the images offsite? Or is it just a 'secure' way of sharing images.In the video, the SW they are reviewing the Xray's on doesn't look like Xray viewing software, more like Gimp or some sort of Photoshop, don't know what it is, but the logo top left doesn't look like theirs. The way the images pop-into the folder already preformed, no exposure control, scanning speeds etc..? Where's the control, where's the web frontend?Flocks of white coated people moving around a warehouse with wooden boxes.https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imagingEDIT: Adding this incase of TL;DR

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2021, 01:50:41 pm
content: In a former job, I worked on developing some driver electronics for field emitting X-ray cathodes using Spindt emitter arrays, essentially a gate driver with a few hundred volt output. I can't go into the details of the entire X-ray source, but it was a high power source for medical applications. The problem was the survivability of the emitters when the tube would occasionally arc over, called a "spit". The arrays either evaporated under a direct hit, or would be damaged by the byproducts and outgassing resulting from the spit.Note that this was a medium power tube. A high power tube with rotating tungsten anode for a high end CT might have a power supply capable of up to 100 kV at 1 A! That way, you could get 1 kW of X-rays. Much of this gets lost in the collimator, which is basically an adjustable lead (Pb) slot to shape the beam. Total DC to usable X-ray efficiency is well below 1%.Cheers,John