(Page 2 of 2)
"The [new] method lends itself to low-cost manufacturing, even for large-area devices," says Shawn Williams, vice president of technology at Plextronics, a company that makes conductive polymer inks for solar cells and LEDs.
The Siemens researchers have "looked at a very low-cost deposition technique, and not only can they make it work, but it actually works better than when made other ways," says Jackson. The spray-coated photodiodes are more efficient than organic photodiodes made using the other techniques. This is because thicker layers can be made without disrupting the nanoscale structure of the polymer interface, which is crucial. The Siemens system has a quantum efficiency of about 75 percent; in other words, for every 100 photons that hit the diode, 75 will be registered. "That's pretty good," says Jackson.
Replacing silicon with polymers might have other advantages. The Siemens group has so far been using heavy, brittle glass coated with indium tin oxide as the substrate, but the photodiodes could be printed onto flexible plastic backings, making possible new imagers that are shaped to fit a particular part of the body. "The spray-coating can be performed on pretty much any substrate," says Tedde.
Lightweight, large-area, flexible x-ray imagers "would be a really nice gadget," says Richard Lanza, a senior research scientist in nuclear science and engineering at MIT, who develops high-resolution x-ray systems. In the case of mammograms, breasts must be compressed to conform to the flat, rigid imaging panels. Conformable organic photodiodes might make such procedures far more comfortable.
A California company is developing a compact, flat-panel source of x-rays.
Tiny electron emitters inside an x-ray generator could improve medical imaging and cancer therapy.
Researchers have combined two devices for real-time tumor tracking and treatment.
Something tells me the savings is unlikely to make its way to patients. Call me cynical.
Always good to throw in a vague unsupported cynical 'feeling' about greed keeping reduced costs from flowing to consumers.
Well, you're right.
If an x-ray machine goes from $10,000 to $2,000 SHOULD it mean that x-rays will follow Moore's laws? No, of course not.
Since taking an x-ray isn't just about the machine. I don't know the exact breakdown but a large chunk of it is the MA or radiologic technician's time setting up the gear and Pt for an x-ray, positioning Pt to get the right part of the body at the right angle. Also knowing what part to take pix of.
An idiot might be able to take every possible angle (called an MRI or CAT scan) but that is a huge dose of radiation greater than just one cross section when is not needed.
So given that the human side is a great expense and Moore isn't cranking us out any cheaper (Except during this downturn). then there is the support circuitry of semiconductor in the x-ray machine, and all the other electronic gear controlling it and firmware isn't going to change.
Then housing the x-ray machine, calibrating, building a place to house it that is shielded from frying everyone nearby (I know nurses this has actually happened to thru inadequate shielding). Hospital and Dr's buildings aren't being made any cheaper by this advance.
And a specialist or Dr to interpret the results will not go down in price due to this.
This comment reminds me of a friend who seems to think that everything costs about $.75 to make in an anonymouse factory in China or India. That would great if 'everything' could be shipped on container ships for free and stored and trucked for free and if store employees or UPS drivers all would bring it to you for free.
There you go! Your cynical comment has been dissected and found to be essentially correct!
However this should lead to more clinics and other places being able to afford x-ray machines, and a slowing of increases due to other costs (personnel, rent, etc) which actually make up the bulk of the costs. The ability to shape the emitter should also help make new innovative diagnostic tools with lower x-ray exposures and (even if slightly) lower costs.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
hsfrey
13 Comments
X-ray Absorption
It would seem to me that, unless you're using very soft, non-penetrating x-rays, the absorption of a plastic film would be much less than of a higher Z material, so a much higher x-ray dose would be required to get as good an image.
Reply
TooMany
125 Comments
Re: X-ray Absorption
Siemens claims:
"The Siemens system has a quantum efficiency of about 75 percent; in other words, for every 100 photons that hit the diode, 75 will be registered. "That's pretty good," says Jackson."
Reply