[spooky]

I’m attempting to find out if the technology is real, if so, is it going to disrupt the radiology market.
Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed. 
Supposedly, they have “agreements” not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.
You guys know the technology I don’t OTOH, when I was a little kid radios had vacuum tubes that were replaced by transistors now transistors are as small as 20 nanometers.
 
[link=https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership]https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership[/link]
[link=https://www.nanox.vision/news-en]https://www.nanox.vision/news-en[/link]
[attachment=0]   

 

[satyanar]

Quote from zeuses

Thanks for the reply but I don’t do Puts or Calls or Shorts, at this point I’m attempting to find out if the technology is real, if so is it going to disrupt the radiology market.
Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed. 
Supposedly, they have “agreements” not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.

[link=https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership]https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership[/link]
[link=https://www.nanox.vision/news-en]https://www.nanox.vision/news-en[/link]

 
You are not understanding what we are saying. Even if it is real enough to take those rudimentary radiographs you posted and gets FDA approval to do that, it is not disrupting anything. The whole premise that makes the numbers work is the business plan is MSaaS and linking the images to the cloud for AI/radiologist interpretation. It is at that point when the whole idea falls flat on it’s face. There is not one approved screening method that uses radiographs, or a crude hologram that the “ARC”[b] might[/b] be able to create.

[phenytoin]

They are getting snowed the same way all the retail investors are….thats what scam artists are good at.

[satyanar]

Quote from zeuses

Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed. 
Supposedly, they have “agreements” not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.

[link=https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership]https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership[/link]
[link=https://www.nanox.vision/news-en]https://www.nanox.vision/news-en[/link]

 
 
You need to understand that they don’t even need to be “snowed”. All they have done is lone their names to the company. Actually probably[b] sold[/b] their names. I’ve been offered these types of consulting gigs before. It’s hard to turn down stock options if one does not have to do much other than allow your name and picture to be on a website. For the head of the Mexican company I understand he was able to buy shares at $2. That’s pretty good incentive to go into a non binding “agreement” to purchase 1000 units.

[spooky]

OK, you guys are the experts I came here to learn from you and I did. I’m a retired IT guy who spent my career w/ a healthcare provider w/ a nationwide footprint. I’m always looking for disruptive technology.
BTW, attempted to upload an image of a transistor to compare to the vacuum tube but it didn’t work.

[satyanar]

You were smart to do so IMO. Now don’t get mad at us when the stock temporarily takes off like a rocket ship emoji! These pumpers are good at what they do.

[spooky]

Oh no, I’m not mad.  I came here for the straight dope and I got it.  I’m a big fan of technology and was optimistic about the NANOX hype.  And I’ve enjoyed my exchanges w/ you guys.

[julie.young_645]

[link=https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new]https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new[/link]
 
Thoughts?

[spooky]

[link=https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new]https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new[/link]
 
Thanks for posting the link but it is quite technical.

[willian]

I’ve gone through each of the Nanox patents in the detailed technical writeup [link=https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imaging]here[/link].
I’m a PhD physicist and patent attorney living in Israel .

[willian]

Quote from DoctorDalai

[link=https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new]https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new[/link]

Thoughts?

I’ve done a detailed analysis of the nanox patents [link=https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imaging]here[/link].

[ruszja]

Quote from jeremy_rutman_IP

Quote from DoctorDalai

[link=https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new]https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020158644A1/en?assignee=nanox&oq=nanox&sort=new[/link]

Thoughts?

I’ve done a detailed analysis of the nanox patents [link=https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imaging]here[/link].

 
Thanks for putting that together and sharing it here. Interesting that the problems with their approach are obvious to a practicioner in the patent business.
 
Where I disagree with your analysis is the focus on the durability aspect. I dont recall them making any particular claims on that. If your x-ray source is a $10 throwaway chip that comes in a box from fox-conn, you dont have to concern yourself with durability much. Every x scans, you just pull the 20 tubes and toss them, kind of like a mediocre android phone. 
 
Given the flimsiness of their patent portfolio and outsized claims for their device, I would like to be able to take the covers off their ‘Arc’ to see what it says on the housing for each of their wondertubes 😉

[willian]

Quote from fw

Thanks for putting that together and sharing it here. Interesting that the problems with their approach are obvious to a practicioner in the patent business.

Where I disagree with your analysis is the focus on the durability aspect. I dont recall them making any particular claims on that. If your x-ray source is a $10 throwaway chip that comes in a box from fox-conn, you dont have to concern yourself with durability much. Every x scans, you just pull the 20 tubes and toss them, kind of like a mediocre android phone. 

Given the flimsiness of their patent portfolio and outsized claims for their device, I would like to be able to take the covers off their ‘Arc’ to see what it says on the housing for each of their wondertubes 😉

 
My assumption that they are banking on durability came from this:
Said Hitoshi Masuya, CEO of Nanox Japan, while some companies have made achievements using carbon nano tubes as a basis for field emission X-ray with similar approach to the one used by Nanox, to the best of our knowledge no company have achieved a commercially stable source that can be embedded inside a medical imaging system and operate with an acceptable lifespan. We are proud at our achievement and look forward to beginning to revolutionizing medical imaging in the world.
 
Other claims I have heard are: low cost (the main claim to fame) and multispectral capability.  Something I dug up on my own is improved monochromaticity, apparently due to less Brehmsstrahlung (sp?).  Without knowing whether these sources are trying to compete with CT (which are multi-KW devices going for $100K or more if I have it right) or are more dental X-ray scale (500W for $100), its tough to weigh in definitively.  The unit price of $10,000 does pretty clearly seem to be imaginary given a detector will apparently be north of $50,000 alone.

[ruszja]

You are asking the right questions.
– we already do ‘multispectral’ x-ray and CT
– we already do tomosynthesis every day
– we already have a cold cathode x-ray source in the marketplace

All these technologies have limitations imposed by the underlying physics and by the regulatory environment. This companys claim is that their proprietary combination of AI, cloud computing and unicorn farts will somehow levitate their system above all those constraints.

I am skeptical.

[willian]

Quote from fw

You are asking the right questions.
– we already do ‘multispectral’ x-ray and CT
– we already do tomosynthesis every day
– we already have a cold cathode x-ray source in the marketplace
I am skeptical.

I updated my [link=https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imaging]analysis[/link] with stuff I’ve learned here and from further poking about. 
It seems nanox is comparing a $100, 100W tube suitable for (e.g.) dental x-ray to a ~10KW, $150K tube suitable for CT.
I am left with a few concrete questions – namely, does a high end $150K tube allow for continuous use? I saw reference to a ‘hold your breath’ 20second spiral scan where something like 100 exposures are done. Does that sound about right?  At 10kW over 20s thats 200KJ of energy deposited on the anode with (apparently) something like 99% of that going to heat.
A tungsten anode of e.g. 100g and heat capacity 0.14 J/gC  at room temp would(if uncooled) heat up by
dT=Q/mc = 200KJ/(.14*100)  -> melted all to hell.
The anode might last up to about 50kJ or 5 seconds before melting .
For a tube of the same power but using a field emitter array,  the notion that the individual field emitter array electron beams hit the anode at slightly different points makes no difference to this situation (except 1. that you would avoid having to rotate the electrode, if the local heating is faster than the heat conduction ability of the material and 2. the x-ray source may well now be originating from a larger area, making for a worse image; the nanox source appears to be about 2cm x 2cm , while a CT spotsize of 1mm for a 10KW beam is apparently reasonable).
The only way out that I can imagine is if the nanox device was producing x-rays more efficiently – and if it uses electrons accelerated into  an anode, its using the same braking radiation mechanism as the conventional tube, and therefore has the same low efficiency as a conventional tube.
 
Does all this sound reasonable?
 

[ruszja]

Quote from jeremy_rutman_IP

I am left with a few concrete questions – namely, does a high end $150K tube allow for continuous use? I saw reference to a ‘hold your breath’ 20second spiral scan where something like 100 exposures are done. Does that sound about right?  At 10kW over 20s thats 200KJ of energy deposited on the anode with (apparently) something like 99% of that going to heat.

 
Yes, that’s one of the main features of those CT tubes, they are able to absorb the heat that is created in either long continuous scans (e.g. a vascular study where one scans from the heart down to the toes) or in multi-phase studies where the same area (e.g. the liver) gets scanned 2 or 3 times in a row. A portable x-ray system like the carestream unit  takes one or two exposures that take a few miliseconds each. The amount of energy deposited in the anode on a dental x-ray or portable x-ray unit is not very large.
 

A tungsten anode of e.g. 100g and heat capacity 0.14 J/gC  at room temp would(if uncooled) heat up by
dT=Q/mc = 200KJ/(.14*100)  -> melted all to hell.
The anode might last up to about 50kJ or 5 seconds before melting .
For a tube of the same power but using a field emitter array,  the notion that the individual field emitter array electron beams hit the anode at slightly different points makes no difference to this situation (except 1. that you would avoid having to rotate the electrode, if the local heating is faster than the heat conduction ability of the material and 2. the x-ray source may well now be originating from a larger area, making for a worse image; the nanox source appears to be about 2cm x 2cm , while a CT spotsize of 1mm for a 10KW beam is apparently reasonable).

 
The way the rotating anode tubes ‘survive’ the heat is that they spin the anode and rather than the energy being deposited into a 1mm spot, it is spread around ‘stripe’ around the perimeter of the disc. The dynamics are such that just enough heat can be conducted away from the disc for it to not turn to metal vapor.
 

The only way out that I can imagine is if the nanox device was producing x-rays more efficiently – and if it uses electrons accelerated into  an anode, its using the same braking radiation mechanism as the conventional tube, and therefore has the same low efficiency as a conventional tube.

Does all this sound reasonable?

 
Yes.

[spooky]

IMO. the company is a fraud using Fake It Until You Make It technique
This link is supposed to describe how NANOX technology works.
[link]https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imaging[/link]
 

[satyanar]

Zeuses. That link is authored by our new colleague here who already shared it with us. Its hardly supposed to describe how the technology works. It shows why it must be a fraud. Am I missing something in your post?

[spooky]

“Its hardly supposed to describe how the technology works. It shows why it must be a fraud. Am I missing something in your post?.
Thread Enhancer, The guys on the Yahoo NANOX group  posted that link validating the technology works.  No Kidding.
If you’ve got some time on your hands might be interesting to checkout the forum.  Very few of the people in that forum reply to negative information.  Every investment I buy I research than research again.
Thanks for all of you helpful information.
[link=https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NNOX/community?p=NNOX]https://finance.yahoo.com…/NNOX/community?p=NNOX[/link]

[satyanar]

Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, it is amazing how people use things they dont understand as support for their conclusions.

Thanks. Ill check it out.

[spooky]

I did not know the ceo of the Mexican company bought shares @ $2.  It’s frustrating NNOX can get away w/ this crap.  As previously mentioned, I read the NNOX CEO, Ran Poliakine, had misled a major investor in PowerMat phone charging co.

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from zeuses

I did not know the ceo of the Mexican company bought shares @ $2.  It’s frustrating NNOX can get away w/ this crap.  As previously mentioned, I read the NNOX CEO, Ran Poliakine, had misled a major investor in PowerMat phone charging co.

 
This company is beyond shady.  Check out their SK Telecom deal.  They “convinced” SKT to partner with them on producing the emitter chip and got SKT to buy over 1mm shares at $16/share.  What they later disclosed in the regulatory filings was that the SKT executive personally got options for 1.2mm shares for free, 6 months prior, with a strike price of $2.21.  I’m pretty sure that is a fire-able offense (if not downright illegal) in almost every respectable country in the world.

[ruszja]

Quote from zeuses

I’m attempting to find out if the technology is real, if so, is it going to disrupt the radiology market.
Their backers and BoD are very impressive I struggle to see how foxconn and others are getting snowed. 
Supposedly, they have “agreements” not contracts to sell machines to Mexico and other countries.
You guys know the technology I don’t OTOH, when I was a little kid radios had vacuum tubes that were replaced by transistors now transistors are as small as 20 nanometers. 

 
Few here doubt that there is potential in a solid-state x-ray source. And I fully expect, that one day there will be a new generation of x-ray equipment using such sources, including CT scanners with multiple sources and small ‘arcs’ of detectors instead of the ‘big tube, large sector’ we have right now. There is lots of of potential in such a technology and every imaging equipment manufacturer has people working on this.
 
I have a problem with the exuberant claims made by the company for their equipment. Those claims just dont match up what the technology can achieve even if it works.  Add to that a lot of suspicious behaviors such as distribution agreements with entities that are not in the business of distributing medical imaging equipment, and it just raises the question whether its a scam A-Z.
 
We had this in aviation about 20 years ago. A software executive pumped an investment scheme surrounding a ‘very light jet’ (VLJ). The company was called ‘Eclipse Aviation’. Everything was new, everything was different, they opted for a cruise-missile engine instead of a commercial aircraft engine etc. The promise was that the resulting jet would be sold at a sub 1mil price point when comparable products from the market leaders (Cessna and Embraer) sold at 3-4mil.  In the end, they DID produce a cute little jet that actually fills a market niche, but no amount of slick brochures was able to suspend the laws of physics. It had a range much shorter than the initial concepts, carried less and still cost 2.5mil out the door. So instead of pumping out 1000 pieces a year, they built about 270 before the outfit folded. Oh, and they had an ‘order’ of 1400 jets on the books, from a new company (Dayjet) that was marketing a ‘point to point’ jet transportation service that would revolutionized private jet travel.
20 years later, Cessna and Embraer stopped selling their own VLJ products and the 250 or so owners of the little Eclipse ‘jetlings’ are scrounging for parts and support. It simply didn’t work, as you cant suspend the laws of aerodynamics just with a flashy powerpoint.
 

[spooky]

“. . .  It simply didn’t work, as you cant suspend the laws of aerodynamics just with a flashy powerpoint.”
I remember that.  Sixty minutes did a segment about them.

[m.j_433]

One of the things that I keep seeing all over the place including the Bloomberg article on this company is how they are disrupting 100 year old legacy technology.

This is such a joke like there isnt constant innovation in medical imaging. All of our CT scanners at my hospital now using deep learning instead of iterative reconstruction, we use spectral or dual energy scanners, even the tables are carbon fiber with memory foam for the patients. Its funny people think this tiny little company is disrupting all these aspects of imaging because MF called it the Tesla of medical imaging

The arc may be capable of cheap low energy x-ray generation plus whatever sort of crappy hologram the 11 source array makes.

I think a more appropriate comparison is the 65 VW beetle of medical imaging. There may be a market in the developing world but not in the US today.

[julie.young_645]

The patent I cited above is registered to Nanox but the inventor is from Japan. Fuji is not mentioned. My quick read suggests what many have been saying from early on…this thing might be able to produce some form of tomosynthesis, which would match the few images they have released. But the emitters are of such low energy that the acquisition time would be prohibitively long, even to get these limited results. The hype surrounding everything makes it clear that these guys have very little idea of what is really needed. Their analysis ignores just about [i]everything[/i] beyond the fact that their emitter is cheaper than a conventional rotating-anode tube. 

[spooky]

“One of the things that I keep seeing all over the place including the Bloomberg article on this company is how they are disrupting 100 year old legacy technology.. . . ”
 
As you pointed out Technology is not static.  Years ago, my first PC was a  XT computer slow w/ limited memory.  If NANOX has legitimate technology I assume it will not be static and it will improve.

[julie.young_645]

You are still thinking this is something great. It isn’t. They aren’t Apple or Dell. There might actually be a core of usable tech here, but the fact that they have cloaked themselves in AI hype, agreements, and reading contracts before the first human image is acquired should tell you that the tech is NOT what is being sold. 

[spooky]

I agree, until they produce quality scans from patients it’s vaporware.
 

[satyanar]

Quote from zeuses

I agree, until they produce quality scans from patients it’s vaporware.

Thats not the point. Even if it takes quality radiographs it still is not disruptive in any way. The only way it is disruptive is if it takes CT quality images. That is not possible.

[m.j_433]

The x-ray source may be less of a novel design than I had thought.  This article is from 2010 discussing more than one company with similar technology( [link=https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/04/06/263543/creating-a-portable-x-ray-machine/]https://www.technologyrev…ortable-x-ray-machine/[/link] )  A brief search I found some other companies advertising XR generation without the moving components. 
 
With a market cap approaching 2 billion people are betting on the Tesla like disrupter angle that has been portrayed in the media based on a combination of false /overstated and meaningless claims: arc as a CT replacement, “cloud” whatever, AI – which would be provided by third parties.

[m.j_433]

Sorry to keep beating the dead horse here but one more issue: NNOX is not even on the RSNA list

[link=https://www.rsna.org/annual-meeting/exhibitor-list-industry-presentations]https://www.rsna.org/annu…industry-presentations[/link]

I think Im getting off Twitter for awhile. Cant take it anymore.

[spooky]

..

[julie.young_645]

That’s a different company. But the are on the new list dropped today:
 
[link=https://rsna2020.mapyourshow.com/8_0/exhibitor/exhibitor-list.cfm?export=pdf]https://rsna2020.mapyours…or-list.cfm?export=pdf[/link]

[spooky]

 
I see NNOX on the vendor list you posted.  Thanks
Nano-X Imaging Ltd
Nanox Vision known as Nano-X Imaging Ltd
 
 

[ruszja]

Quote from n.rad

The x-ray source may be less of a novel design than I had thought.  This article is from 2010 discussing more than one company with similar technology( [link=https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/04/06/263543/creating-a-portable-x-ray-machine/]https://www.technologyrev…ortable-x-ray-machine/[/link] )  A brief search I found some other companies advertising XR generation without the moving components. 

 
What are the odds, they even have the same electron microscopy image of the emitter ?
 
[link]https://www.theengineer.co.uk/working-flat-out/[/link]
 
This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

[m.j_433]

Lol. Nice find.

[m.j_433]

Im not sure if someone else posted this but I assume everyone saw the second short report on them:

[link=https://www.muddywatersresearch.com/research/nnox/mw-is-short-nnox/]https://www.muddywatersre…nnox/mw-is-short-nnox/[/link]

[spooky]

MuddyWatersReseach.com is one of the many reasons I don’t own any Chinese equities. 
MWR has been sued several times but as far as I know they have never lost a lawsuit though I haven’t checked recently.   Earlier this evening I decided to sell NNOX. After thinking about it I’m going to recoup my investment then ride out the craziness w/ the rest of NNOX. 

[satyanar]

Typical discussion: So all they need to do is reply “yes” and the stock goes to the moon!
 
“Following is from other chatting room, “If some of you wondering I asked NANOX whether their device works as a CT yesterday and they replied me today. Yes their device works as CT. So all hospitals will use their CT. Who would want to pay for millions of dollars?”

[m.j_433]

Brad Freeman is the Motley Fool writer who is really promoting this on Twitter as a CT scanner.  The verbatim statement from the F1 they will throw at you reads “As such, the system 3000 may be incorporated into an improved computerized tomography system…”
 
He has taken this to mean the arc can do CT better than “legacy CT systems”  Completely discounting the phrase “may be incorporated” i.e. would likely require significant modification: more sources, different detectors, reconstruction algorithm etc.
 
Don’t waste your time trying to explain this.  He’ll just immediately block you. 
 
[link=https://twitter.com/mattg5289/status/1311891622968397824?s=21]https://twitter.com/mattg5289/status/1311891622968397824?s=21[/link]

[m.j_433]

I directed them to a physics site that shows what CT images look like with different degrees of back projection.

The response I got was youre stuck on what your legacy equipment is capable of

[satyanar]

The fraud is getting more intense and yet the price keeps going up. Time to look at the options chains again!

[ruszja]

Quote from n.rad

Brad Freeman is the Motley Fool writer who is really promoting this on Twitter as a CT scanner.  The verbatim statement from the F1 they will throw at you reads “As such, the system 3000 may be incorporated into an improved computerized tomography system…”

 
Would be interesting to know what trades Mr Freeman has executed on Nanox.

[jdlebamoff_432]

The whole idea of using a solid-state/field-emission X-ray source is old and people have been working on it for decades.  The article you quoted below is slightly different.  Yes it is still using a rectangular array of micro-cones with gates to focus the electrons.  But the emitter materials are different (LiNbO3 vs some type of molybdenum alloy).
 
If you’re interested in a solid-state X-ray emitter already on the market, check out CareStream’s DRX Revolution Nano mobile X-ray.  It uses a CNT-based emitter, doing exactly what Nanox claims to achieve (one day).  Nice device and has some potential, but not exactly replacing CTs around the world.
 

Quote from fw

Quote from n.rad

The x-ray source may be less of a novel design than I had thought.  This article is from 2010 discussing more than one company with similar technology( [link=https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/04/06/263543/creating-a-portable-x-ray-machine/]https://www.technologyrev…ortable-x-ray-machine/[/link] )  A brief search I found some other companies advertising XR generation without the moving components. 

What are the odds, they even have the same electron microscopy image of the emitter ?

[link=https://www.theengineer.co.uk/working-flat-out/]https://www.theengineer.co.uk/working-flat-out/[/link]

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

[ruszja]

Quote from vaporfly

If you’re interested in a solid-state X-ray emitter already on the market, check out CareStream’s DRX Revolution Nano mobile X-ray.  It uses a CNT-based emitter, doing exactly what Nanox claims to achieve (one day).  Nice device and has some potential, but not exactly replacing CTs around the world.

 
Lol.
 
So there is already a product on the market that does exactly what they are claiming. 
 
Having solid state source with a much better energy efficiency eliminates a few constraints in the design of a CT scanner. A basic CT for use in a urgentcare may well take advantage of those changes in design constraints. But I have a feeling the box will say ‘Siemens’, ‘Shimadsu’ or ‘Neusoft’ on the outside, not ‘Nanox’.

[satyanar]

Quote from fw

Quote from vaporfly

If you’re interested in a solid-state X-ray emitter already on the market, check out CareStream’s DRX Revolution Nano mobile X-ray.  It uses a CNT-based emitter, doing exactly what Nanox claims to achieve (one day).  Nice device and has some potential, but not exactly replacing CTs around the world.

Lol.

So there is already a product on the market that does exactly what they are claiming. 

 
Which is why they are confident they will get FDA 510 (k) approval which will send this rocket ship to the moon!

[ruszja]

Quote from Thread Enhancer

Which is why they are confident they will get FDA 510 (k) approval which will send this rocket ship to the moon!

 
What carestream is lacking is the AI and ‘cloud’ mumbo-jumbo, and the promise of world peace. 
 
IF they get a 510k for their planar system, it is basically an admission that they have nothing special.

[m.j_433]

I think the 510 K process is much easier which is the main reason it’s used. Theres a lot of criticism around it as devices have been approved in the past as substantially equivalent which may have not been so equivalent after all and ended up harming patients.

[link=https://www.shouselaw.com/herniamesh/fda/fdaapproval/]https://www.shouselaw.com…amesh/fda/fdaapproval/[/link]

[m.j_433]

BTW it seems AuntMinnie has been discovered by the rest of the internet.

Im seeing screenshots from this discussion being posted on various chat rooms.

[julie.young_645]

We should charge them for the privilege.

[m.j_433]

Lol. Agree.

[m.j_433]

Lots of similarities here:

[link]https://micro-x.com/technology/cnt-technology/[/link]

But the most exciting new applications involve arrays of miniature x-ray sources which can be electronically switched in sequence to produce a moving x-ray beam from stationary components. Conventional CT scanners rotate a giant x-ray tube quickly in a gantry to scan patients; Micro-Xs technology can do this with no moving parts.

[ruszja]

Quote from n.rad

Lots of similarities here:

[link=https://micro-x.com/technology/cnt-technology/]https://micro-x.com/technology/cnt-technology/[/link]

But the most exciting new applications involve arrays of miniature x-ray sources which can be electronically switched in sequence to produce a moving x-ray beam from stationary components. Conventional CT scanners rotate a giant x-ray tube quickly in a gantry to scan patients; Micro-Xs technology can do this with no moving parts.

 
Just like the electron beam CT. It’ll take over, I tell you….

[m.j_433]

[link=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32505-z.pdf]https://www.nature.com/ar…s41598-018-32505-z.pdf[/link]

If Im interpreting this correctly it looks like in order to create a CT image with stationary sources this group had to rotate the 7 sources 15 times (based on the CAD illustration) so a total of 105 stationary sources wouldve been needed to generate a CT image.

The arc has 11?

[julie.young_645]

Quote from n.rad

[link=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32505-z.pdf]https://www.nature.com/ar…s41598-018-32505-z.pdf[/link]

If Im interpreting this correctly it looks like in order to create a CT image with stationary sources this group had to rotate the 7 sources 15 times (based on the CAD illustration) so a total of 105 stationary sources wouldve been needed to generate a CT image.

The arc has 11?

 
The paper from Nature is for a COMPLETE RING of detectors and sources, which they compare to a PET scanner ring, and THAT topology would work. But an arc or 7 or 11 sources on a ring that translates in the Z-axis will NOT be able to produce a true tomographic image. Tomosynthesis, maybe. But NOT true CT. 
 
Here are some screen-caps from the nanox.vision site’s demo video, which I believe was acquired at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem:
 
[image]https://i.ibb.co/LYQ84sM/Screen-Shot-2020-10-07-at-1-19-22-PM.png[/image]
 
Notice that the sources are all at the top of the “ring” in an “arc”…NOT A COMPLETE RING!
 
Also…
[image]https://i.ibb.co/cQvXk96/Screen-Shot-2020-10-07-at-1-19-03-PM.png[/image]
 
I’ve been wondering about the detectors. The prototype DOESN’T HAVE ANY! They used a simple DR plate for the phantom studies. Little problem there, eh?

[satyanar]

Anyone recognize the vendor of that DR plate? I was chastised on Seeking Alpha and told I probably wasn’t a radiologist because I didn’t recognize it.
 
In case one needs the password!
 
“There are just too many working or retired radiologists here. It is very easy to check whether they are for real: if they don’t know what detector is used by Nanox in the videos, they are either incompetent or not radiologists. Maybe you know who made the detector and the software?”

[jdlebamoff_432]

I assume the detector is supposed to be hidden inside the couch, right below the arc?
 
Given that they appear to be using their device for tomo, maybe they can use third party (flat) digital detectors and then just overlap their magical machine learning AI algo over the data!

[spooky]

” But I have a feeling the box will say ‘Siemens’, ‘Shimadsu’ or ‘Neusoft’ on the outside, not ‘Nanox’.”
 
Starting to look like Nikola Trucks scam.  NKLA
[link]https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/[/link]
 
‘The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so’
Louis Pasteur
 

[satyanar]

The analogy would be complete if Nanox actually had something the big vendors don’t already have access to. Of course GM was foolish enough to believe NKLA so maybe they will just be duped? History does have a tendency to repeat.

[spooky]

“Of course GM was foolish enough to believe NKLA so maybe they will just be duped?”
I followed NKLA as another “disruptive” technology, however, after looking under the hood it appeared to be another “fake ’til we make it” scam.
The GM deal is puzzling on a few fronts because they have very experienced investment subsidiary that has EV deals w/ Honda and others.  If I remember correctly GM did not invest any $ in NKLA it’s a technology deal.

[satyanar]

I’m not sure about the details of the NKLA deal with GM. I just know what my hedge fund manager friends have to say about the current situation where GM can keep the stock price boosted on something that has zero value just because they are GM.

[ruszja]

Quote from zeuses

” But I have a feeling the box will say ‘Siemens’, ‘Shimadsu’ or ‘Neusoft’ on the outside, not ‘Nanox’.”

Starting to look like Nikola Trucks scam.  NKLA
[link=https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/]https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/[/link]

 
I doubt it will be Nanox ‘technology’ that will show up in a branded box. It’ll be something those companies either purchase from an actual manfacturer of tube/receptors or an in-house development.

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from fw

Quote from zeuses

” But I have a feeling the box will say ‘Siemens’, ‘Shimadsu’ or ‘Neusoft’ on the outside, not ‘Nanox’.”

Starting to look like Nikola Trucks scam.  NKLA
[link=https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/]https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/[/link]

I doubt it will be Nanox ‘technology’ that will show up in a branded box. It’ll be something those companies either purchase from an actual manfacturer of tube/receptors or an in-house development.

 
If Nanox really had a functional cold cathode tube that can achieve similar specs (kV,  mA, life span, reliability, etc) as hot filament tubes, they can just sell that tube to OEMs (like Micro-X is doing), without all the trouble of trying to develop entirely new machines, let alone trying to sell the stock market on some SaaS model.  Instead, they had one agreement with Fuji, who apparently passed on the opportunity to use their source for mammography.

[ruszja]

Quote from vaporfly

If Nanox really had a functional cold cathode tube that can achieve similar specs (kV,  mA, life span, reliability, etc) as hot filament tubes, they can just sell that tube to OEMs (like Micro-X is doing), without all the trouble of trying to develop entirely new machines, let alone trying to sell the stock market on some SaaS model.  Instead, they had one agreement with Fuji, who apparently passed on the opportunity to use their source for mammography.

 
I would have to ask a physicist or engineer, but I always thought the heat generation is mostly on the anode side, that’s why the whole heat-conduction and cooling mechanism is on that end of the tube. The heated cathode is a few watts. So if they are going x-ray more than a cadaveric hand, they are eventually going to build up HUs in their little step-anodes. 
 
But that is if their device is constrained by the laws of physics, which doesn’t seem to be a given.

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from fw

Quote from vaporfly

If Nanox really had a functional cold cathode tube that can achieve similar specs (kV,  mA, life span, reliability, etc) as hot filament tubes, they can just sell that tube to OEMs (like Micro-X is doing), without all the trouble of trying to develop entirely new machines, let alone trying to sell the stock market on some SaaS model.  Instead, they had one agreement with Fuji, who apparently passed on the opportunity to use their source for mammography.

I would have to ask a physicist or engineer, but I always thought the heat generation is mostly on the anode side, that’s why the whole heat-conduction and cooling mechanism is on that end of the tube. The heated cathode is a few watts. So if they are going x-ray more than a cadaveric hand, they are eventually going to build up HUs in their little step-anodes. 

But that is if their device is constrained by the laws of physics, which doesn’t seem to be a given.

 
I’m pretty sure the tungsten cathodes typically need to be heated to a very high temperature to emit enough electrons with the required energy levels. So Nanox was correct about this – if you can create a functional x-ray tube around a cold cathode, it is like going from an incandescent bulb to an LED bulb.
 
Also, I was told that a cold cathode tube could allow you to control the focal spot electronically and in real-time, to improve your spatial resolution.  Lastly, because cold cathodes won’t fail catastrophically/unpredictably, theoretically you can design a machine that will let you know ahead of time when a tube needs to be replaced.  Those are all good things in theory, but the question is whether or not they will get there.

[JohnnyFever]

It’s not enough to make x-rays, you need them to have high enough energy to penetrate a high bmi patient.

[julie.young_645]

And it would be nice to have some form of detector to detect said X-rays. 

[m.j_433]

My current understanding is:

1. The claims regarding the source may be theoretically possible but its hard to trust anything from this company as so much has been faked to date.
2. 11 sources with a fan beam or cone beam of 30 degrees could theoretically produced a CT-like image which is apparently described in Buzug’s 2008 book Page 338, which discusses the so-called volume CT and shows GE’s prototype (I have also seen other papers on IEEE that describe this possibility) but this would also require huge leaps in detector technology and presumably require a large array of detectors. This technology is or has been worked on by other leading vendors and it appears unlikely that NNOX will be the one that brings it to market
3. There is currently no built-in detector. They are currently using a single $70,000 Konica Minolta Aero DR detector. As others have said, crude tomosynthesis may be possible with this single detector design (but nothing close to CT).
4. A major point is the fact that they are advertising this device will cost $10,000 when they are using a $70,000 detector.
5. Another major point is that without built-in detectors the video posted showing a real time image acquisition was likely faked.

[jdlebamoff_432]

I agree with pretty much all your bullet points here.  I think Nanox is a total fraud.  I do think the idea of a cold cathode is worth exploring, however.  If Micro-X or whoever else can get more current out of its (CNT-based) tube and guarantee an acceptable useful life, it has potential as a tube-replacement.
 
Has anyone here ever seen the CareStream mobile x-ray that uses Micro-X’s cold cathode?  I hear they’ve been selling well during the pandemic but have not met anyone that’s used it.

[julie.young_645]

There is absolutely no indication that I have found to suggest that the lil’ $100 cold-cathode tubes can produce fan-beams or cone-beams. It is stated at some point in the propaganda that the tubes are “fixed”. 
 
You’ve got a company run by an entrepreneur whose previous success was with a company building cell-phone chargers making claims about technology that cannot exist. Sounds like a winner to me. At least Elizabeth Holmes had some sort of pedigree upon which to build her lies. 

[jdlebamoff_432]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear before.  I am not defending Nanox.  I hope their CEO goes to jail one day for this fraud.
 
I was speaking more about cold cathodes in general, and specifically, I’m wondering about the CareStream unit, which uses a CNT-based tube and is already on the market.  This has nothing to do with Nanox’s claims ($100 tube, $10k machine, CT quality, etc).

[spooky]

RollCall “My current understanding is:”
Thanks for the easy to understand explanation of NANOX “technology” such as it is.

[m.j_433]

One more thing regarding the original patents: If the major vendors had any interest in this type of source technology when it was developed why would Sony not have just licensed it?

[jdlebamoff_432]

When I checked a few weeks ago, they had 3 patents issued in the US, covering the emitter, the detector and the whole system, I believe.  Nothing really stood out in the patents, other than fleshing out some of the principles Spindt first raised 50 years ago.  But then again, I’m not an expert on this stuff so there might be some magic in this that the patent reviewer found novel or compelling.
 
I do think it’s misleading that Nanox keeps harping about how their technology is the result of $1bn+ in R&D by Sony (which they scooped up for almost nothing).  Sony spent all that money trying to make a flat-panel TV to compete against LCD, and it lost.  Very hard to say how much of that, if any, was actually useful for creating an X-ray emitter.
 

Quote from DoctorDalai

The patent I cited above is registered to Nanox but the inventor is from Japan. Fuji is not mentioned. My quick read suggests what many have been saying from early on…this thing might be able to produce some form of tomosynthesis, which would match the few images they have released. But the emitters are of such low energy that the acquisition time would be prohibitively long, even to get these limited results. The hype surrounding everything makes it clear that these guys have very little idea of what is really needed. Their analysis ignores just about [i]everything[/i] beyond the fact that their emitter is cheaper than a conventional rotating-anode tube. 

[ruszja]

Quote from vaporfly

I do think it’s misleading that Nanox keeps harping about how their technology is the result of $1bn+ in R&D by Sony (which they scooped up for almost nothing).  Sony spent all that money trying to make a flat-panel TV to compete against LCD, and it lost.  Very hard to say how much of that, if any, was actually useful for creating an X-ray emitter.

 
I would have to look at it further, but it seems to me that Sony was interested in building small electron ‘guns’ to illuminate one pixel at a time rather than the traditional CRT design with a standing ‘gun’ and deflection coils. Making x-rays was probably a side effect of that panel design, not the goal.
Do you happen to have the patent numbers ? 

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from fw

Quote from vaporfly

I do think it’s misleading that Nanox keeps harping about how their technology is the result of $1bn+ in R&D by Sony (which they scooped up for almost nothing).  Sony spent all that money trying to make a flat-panel TV to compete against LCD, and it lost.  Very hard to say how much of that, if any, was actually useful for creating an X-ray emitter.

I would have to look at it further, but it seems to me that Sony was interested in building small electron ‘guns’ to illuminate one pixel at a time rather than the traditional CRT design with a standing ‘gun’ and deflection coils. Making x-rays was probably a side effect of that panel design, not the goal.
Do you happen to have the patent numbers ? 

 
You are absolutely correct that X-ray production was a side effect of Sony’s goals.  That’s why their claims of $1bn+ R&D is meaningless.
 
Nanox’s patent numbers are 9922793, 10242836 and 10269527.  Their patents are still a bit general and doesn’t go into exactly what their cathode material is, and we have no idea what current they’re actually able to generate with their source.

[ruszja]

Quote from vaporfly

Nanox’s patent numbers are 9922793, 10242836 and 10269527.  Their patents are still a bit general and doesn’t go into exactly what their cathode material is, and we have no idea what current they’re actually able to generate with their source.

 
‘Investments’ is what they are able to generate 😉
 
Seems like an interesting concept, lots of potential if it works. Maybe it’ll bring peace in the middle east while we are at it.

[m.j_433]

SK Telecom seems to be hiring people to develop new and more plausible applications for the MEMS/source.

[link=https://twitter.com/terrapharma1/status/1312062995720069120?s=21]https://twitter.com/terra…12062995720069120?s=21[/link]

Seems the primary aim of the arc science project was to raise the stock price.

SK Telecom must have loved what they saw after they kicked the tires on their investment. Started hiring experts Aug 26th. $NNOX pic.twitter.com/oOeYrUdbu1

— TerraPharma (@TerraPharma1) October 2, 2020

[julie.young_645]

Good catch!!! They’ll probably have some video session during RSNA week. These are fakers extraordinaire. 
 

[m.j_433]

Supposedly the FDA approval announcement may come out Wednesday. Expect a parabolic move.

[link=https://twitter.com/terrapharma1/status/1313116270775033857?s=21]https://twitter.com/terra…13116270775033857?s=21[/link]

Update: Not seeing $NNOX decision yet thru Sept BUT apparently no need to wait til 5th of each month to see 510(k) approvals. Not sure why they do monthly when database now only has 1 biz day delay on avg i.e.NNOX could be approved tomorrow & posted Wed. 10/2 decisions already up pic.twitter.com/uyEpdhARyy

— TerraPharma (@TerraPharma1) October 5, 2020

[m.j_433]

Also, Apparently you cannot do demos at tradeshows unless approval is pending. So they are working against a pretty tight timeline here. They will have to first get approved for single source and then have a pending approval for multi source to pull off the RSNA charade.

[satyanar]

Quote from n.rad

Supposedly the FDA approval announcement may come out Wednesday. Expect a parabolic move.

[link=https://twitter.com/terrapharma1/status/1313116270775033857?s=21]https://twitter.com/terra…13116270775033857?s=21[/link]

That would be the time to buy puts if one is so inclined.

Update: Not seeing $NNOX decision yet thru Sept BUT apparently no need to wait til 5th of each month to see 510(k) approvals. Not sure why they do monthly when database now only has 1 biz day delay on avg i.e.NNOX could be approved tomorrow & posted Wed. 10/2 decisions already up pic.twitter.com/uyEpdhARyy

— TerraPharma (@TerraPharma1) October 5, 2020

[m.j_433]

Possibly. It may run up leading to RSNA.

[m.j_433]

As someone else stated there are lots of levers for them to pull.

[julie.young_645]

I’ve learned over the years that investing in general is governed about 99% by emotion, and about 1% by fact. I have no doubt that SOME of those with cojones of steel, and brains of cellulose, will make money on this thing, real or not. Others will lose it. I do not have the intestinal fortitude to play this game. I only invest in things I completely understand. Your milage may vary. 

[spooky]

Excellent points.  I’ve done very well investing in what I know I bought Microsoft, Apple, and others during the late eighties.  In 1997 moved them to a new ROTH account.  One of Apple’s splits was 17 for 1.   Never had the need or desire to take anything out of the ROTH.  On May 1st ’20 I bought Digital Turbine, APPS, it’s up 532%
Buy what you know is great advice.

[m.j_433]

MICRO-X CT:

[link]https://micro-x.com/products/the-future/[/link]

[satyanar]

Quote from fw

Quote from Thread Enhancer

Which is why they are confident they will get FDA 510 (k) approval which will send this rocket ship to the moon!

What carestream is lacking is the AI and ‘cloud’ mumbo-jumbo, and the promise of world peace. 

IF they get a 510k for their planar system, it is basically an admission that they have nothing special.

 
What’s funny is they spell this out in their business plan. The bulls somehow think this 510k means something.

[m.j_433]

The thing I dont get is how is this fraud still going? It would just take a 10 minute phone call between the SEC and some engineers or physicists to spell it out.

[JohnnyFever]

You would think…. CEO is famous for high level deception. There are just enough distorted truths mixed in to keep people believing.

[m.j_433]

In the proof of concept paper that I posted above they simulated a ring by rotating the stationary sources around and were able to generate an OK image. This wouldnt even be possible when you add detectors thus the semi circle designs. So lets assume you can jam 50 sources into an arc and create a crappy image. It would have a very narrow subset of uses. Honestly, I dont even know if the Micro-X plan is realistic: EMTs administering TPA in the field based on some low resolution CTs? Who would sign up to read those/take on the liability? 

[m.j_433]

…but at least they arent saying theyre going to screen every human on earth once a year.

[satyanar]

Love the sarcasm NR. The headline from a Seeking Alpha report:
 
[h1]Nano-X: Scanning The Entire World, One At A Time[/h1]

[m.j_433]

The crazy thing is so many people have actually bought into this concept, even other physicians on social media.

I was just reading a thread where the objections presented on this forum were mentioned and then disregarded as those guys just dont want to learn how to read something new

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from Thread Enhancer

Anyone recognize the vendor of that DR plate? I was chastised on Seeking Alpha and told I probably wasn’t a radiologist because I didn’t recognize it.

 
[link=https://www.2020imaging.net/products/dr-panels/momentum/]https://www.2020imaging.n…ts/dr-panels/momentum/[/link]

[m.j_433]

None of these images show where they are hiding the flux capacitor.

[satyanar]

Thanks vapor. Show of hands among the radiologists here that recognize that detector from the video? Maybe I’m just incompetent?

[m.j_433]

I always check the detector brand right after I do the equipment QC and clean the room

[satyanar]

I love it nr. I see it’s a Konica-Minolta subsidiary. Do you also change the toner on the Bizzhub while your at it?
 
It’s strange because the guy with the radiologist competency test also thinks the ARC is a fraud. I’m not sure what angle he is taking.
 
 
 

[jdlebamoff_432]

TE – I just went to seekingalpha and read that thread.  I have no clue what that guy (Ricard X Roe)’s angle is.  On the one hand, he’s trying to teach himself x-ray physics, real-time, by reading a textbook (and asks some pretty dumb/confusing questions).  On the other hand, he lectures about how 11 stationary sources can “definitely” get you “image quality of commercial CT or even way better”, like a goddamn boss.
 
Oh, and he’s implying that had you known the vendor of that “widely-used DR” detector you’d understand why the images in the new Nanox video are still fake?  I’m really not following.

[satyanar]

Join the club vaporfly. It truly is bizarre. I can’t tell what he is trying to argue. There are two threads now. No more answers.
 
“Or do you believe that an X-ray traveling downwards attenuates differently from an X-ray traveling upwards along the same path? If you do, you live in another universe”
 
I thought this was particularly good.

[ruszja]

Note the roll of electrical tape to keep the DR plate at the correct angle so the cadaveric hand is imaged straight-on.
 
 

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from fw

Note the roll of electrical tape to keep the DR plate at the correct angle so the cadaveric hand is imaged straight-on.

 
Haha, you know, I was thinking of the same thing.
 
So when I first saw Nanox’s promo video, I remember looking at the images and thinking to myself – the blurry images on the right side of the screen (presumably the real images) look kinda choppy.  I thought it was probably laggy because they didn’t have enough computing power to handle the real-time reconstruction.  But now that you eagle eyes noticed that they’re using a portable detector, it dawned on me!  They don’t have an integrated detector built into the couch that can slide up and down with the arc.  So when they faked the video, they probably had to pause the machine every few seconds to physically move the portable detector under the phantom to get a new slice, and that’s why the images seemed so choppy/laggy!
 
What a piece of work.

[m.j_433]

Did anybody read this?

[link=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.com/amp/investing/2020/09/22/exclusive-interview-the-motley-fool-sits-down-with/]https://www.google.com/am…y-fool-sits-down-with/[/link]

When asked about quality his response was an X-ray is an X-ray.

He also talks about the spectral aspect saying it can look into your brain as well as breast tissue.
 
It can also see into your soul

[satyanar]

Yes, I subscribe to TMF. Their coverage is not investigative in any way. The questions were decent but there was no follow through because IMO the interviewer does not know enough to realize they are being duped.
 
I think they are looking for another story they can pump and add to their premium services. Their discussion boards are full of the same BS one sees on Stock Twits and Seeking Alpha.

[ruszja]

Quote from n.rad

Did anybody read this?

[link=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.com/amp/investing/2020/09/22/exclusive-interview-the-motley-fool-sits-down-with/]https://www.google.com/am…y-fool-sits-down-with/[/link]

When asked about quality his response was an X-ray is an X-ray.

He also talks about the spectral aspect saying it can look into your brain as well as breast tissue.

It can also see into your soul

 
I am trying to understand the scenario of the generic ‘doctor looks at x-ray’ image.
 
So you are wearing
– home depot safety glasses
– a surgical mask
– a surgical gown
– basic from the wall-box blue nitrile gloves
– and you have your fingers on a unsterile spine MRI on a lightbox.
 
The only scenario I can come up with is ‘spine surgeon after a case trying to figure out whether he operated on the right level’.
 
And who prints films for the OR these days ?

[m.j_433]

Maybe its a metaphor for NNOX.

[satyanar]

DD nice to see you over at Seeking Alpha. Be prepared for our friend RXR. You at least can impress him by recognizing the detector.

[m.j_433]

Does anybody know what the CPT codes and RVUs are going to be for screening whole body tomo?

[satyanar]

They are not planning on using any. It’s $14 a scan. I imagine that can just be OOP right?
 
 

[JohnnyFever]

How is this even possible in a post Theranos world???

[ruszja]

Quote from RoleCall

How is this even possible in a post Theranos world???

If you watch ‘American Greed’ on CNBC you ask yourself the same question about almost every investment scam. Short memory and greed are the reasons. One time it’s Bernie Madoff scalping jewish retirees, next go around its a greek guy scamming greeks on Long Island. The scam is the same.

What worked for both Theranos and this cat is skepticism against ‘the established interests’. In the case of nanox, WE are the buggy-whip manufacturers and boiler stokers who are clinging to their ancient ways.

[julie.young_645]

Quote from fw

Quote from RoleCall

How is this even possible in a post Theranos world???

If you watch ‘American Greed’ on CNBC you ask yourself the same question about almost every investment scam. Short memory and greed are the reasons. One time it’s Bernie Madoff scalping jewish retirees, next go around its a greek guy scamming greeks on Long Island. The scam is the same.

What worked for both Theranos and this cat is skepticism against ‘the established interests’. In the case of nanox, WE are the buggy-whip manufacturers and boiler stokers who are clinging to their ancient ways.

 
I think it’s more basic than that. We are seeing greed in all its raw glory and splendor. The investors can only see the upside, and don’t care about the truth. And, like many Madoff investors, Jewish and otherwise, they KNOW there’s a rat, but they want to make their undeserved millions before the scam is revealed. Why do you think the old Nigerian Prince scam was so pervasive? Because there was always one sucker out there that thought HE was the one who would fleece the “Prince”. Give people some shell of legitimacy to hang their greedy dreams on, and they will pounce on anyone who tries to tell them they are getting screwed. 

[satyanar]

This just reminded me of someone interviewing Greeks about the corruption in their country and the response was something on the order of “we know it’s a fraud but we still think we can make money on the way up if others don’t know”

[m.j_433]

 
That part of their plan may actually make some sense – bypass the RUC, CMS, insurance companies…  If you’re providing something nearly clinically useless probably best to keep those guys out of it. 

[phenytoin]

Motley fool is a pump and dump operation these days…their own writers do it. Its crazy.
 
Does anyone know the radiologists on the advisory board? 
[link]https://www.nanox.vision/our-leadership. [/link]  (scroll to bottom)
 
I don’t blame them for lending out their names for $$$, but they are being used to legitimize a scam.
 
 
 

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from Thread Enhancer

They are not planning on using any. It’s $14 a scan. I imagine that can just be OOP right?

 
They won’t be seeking reimbursement directly (but will bill the provider $14/scan or whatever it is).  But for providers to use it, it’s in Nanox’s interest to figure out with CMS exactly what the code is going to be.  However, I’m not sure how much interest a provider will have in paying Nanox $14 for x-ray radiography, plus lab tech and whatever else.

[spooky]

What is the usual cost including labor and interpretation for a  xray? 

[satyanar]

Thats like asking what is the usual cost of going to see an auto mechanic. 
 
Are you still interested in this fraud as an investment Zeuses? Hoping a disruptive price will solve all of the physics problems?

[spooky]

At this point its curiosity.   In the yahoo nnox group I’m getting beat up because I post information that I learn here, including links.  The Yahoo users accuse me of all sorts of NNOX transgressions.  In one of my posts I reminded them that NNOX was a stock not a cult. 

[m.j_433]

Just read that Seeking Alpha thread. I’m obviously not a physicist but I think the answer to his question regarding why they need to go 360 instead of 180 was because the more sources and detectors or angles of information you have for back projection, the closer you get to creating a usable CT image. The max number they could squeeze in and maintain the correct distance was 105 and that required them to go all the way around because of the source size. If they had done half that the image would have been more crap than it was but I guess, yes theoretically you only need 180 degrees of information to make a CT image
 
Scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of the awesomeness we can expect from the arc   

[link=http://www.x-ray-optics.de/index.php/en/applications/imaging/tomography]http://www.x-ray-optics.d…ons/imaging/tomography[/link]

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from n.rad

Just read that Seeking Alpha thread. I’m obviously not a physicist but I think the answer to his question regarding why they need to go 360 instead of 180 was because the more sources and detectors or angles of information you have for back projection, the closer you get to creating a usable CT image. The max number they could squeeze in and maintain the correct distance was 105 and that required them to go all the way around because of the source size. If they had done half that the image would have been more crap than it was but I guess, yes theoretically you only need 180 degrees of information to make a CT image
 
Scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of the awesomeness we can expect from the arc   

[link=http://www.x-ray-optics.de/index.php/en/applications/imaging/tomography]http://www.x-ray-optics.d…ons/imaging/tomography[/link]

 
I’m also no physicist (but I pretend to be one on Internet chatrooms).  I’m not sure if it’s a true statement, even theoretically, that 360 degrees of information isn’t more complete than 180 degrees of information.  RXR kept saying how it makes no difference if a beam is going up-down vs down-up.  If all the photons are either absorbed or passed through, that would be true.  But when you consider scattering, it probably makes a difference if you’re hitting tissue before bone vs bone before tissue, so you probably won’t get the same image if you’re pointing up-down vs down-up.  Hence 360 degrees should get you more information.
 
The real question, however, is whether or not 11-sources set in a 120 degree arc, with a flat detector underneath, would get you the spatial resolution comparable to CT.  I have zero expertise here but based on what Nanox has demonstrated so far, it sounds like the answer is “not even close.”

[julie.young_645]

Quote from vaporfly

Quote from n.rad

Just read that Seeking Alpha thread. I’m obviously not a physicist but I think the answer to his question regarding why they need to go 360 instead of 180 was because the more sources and detectors or angles of information you have for back projection, the closer you get to creating a usable CT image. The max number they could squeeze in and maintain the correct distance was 105 and that required them to go all the way around because of the source size. If they had done half that the image would have been more crap than it was but I guess, yes theoretically you only need 180 degrees of information to make a CT image

Scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of the awesomeness we can expect from the arc   

[link=http://www.x-ray-optics.de/index.php/en/applications/imaging/tomography]http://www.x-ray-optics.d…ons/imaging/tomography[/link]

I’m also no physicist (but I pretend to be one on Internet chatrooms).  I’m not sure if it’s a true statement, even theoretically, that 360 degrees of information isn’t more complete than 180 degrees of information.  RXR kept saying how it makes no difference if a beam is going up-down vs down-up.  If all the photons are either absorbed or passed through, that would be true.  But when you consider scattering, it probably makes a difference if you’re hitting tissue before bone vs bone before tissue, so you probably won’t get the same image if you’re pointing up-down vs down-up.  Hence 360 degrees should get you more information.

The real question, however, is whether or not 11-sources set in a 120 degree arc, with a flat detector underneath, would get you the spatial resolution comparable to CT.  I have zero expertise here but based on what Nanox has demonstrated so far, it sounds like the answer is “not even close.”

 
With Cardiac SPECT, we can make do with a 180 degree arc because the heart, the radiation source, sits anteriorly in the chest. In other SPECT exams, a full 360 degree orbit is needed. The math is similar for CT. I don’t see any [i]possible[/i] way a fixed 120 degree arc of sources translating in the Z axis can yield true axial tomography. I think it [i]COULD[/i] produce [i]tomosynthetic[/i] images. So no doubt they’ll likely seize on that to claim they can do mammography with tomosynthesis, but I have doubts about that. 

[jdlebamoff_432]

So another thing I’ve been wondering recently is – what exactly is this single-source machine that Nanox is seeking 510k clearance for?  How “commercial-ready” does it have to be, or can it look like a science project?
 
I mean, presumably it can’t just be a single Nanox tube, duct-taped to a stand, with a portable detector placed a few feet away?  Presumably you need to have a finished product so they can do 60601 testing.  Theoretically Nanox could use their source (assuming it can generate enough current and has a useful life of more than a few days/months) and create a single-source mobile X-ray unit that’s actually marketable, but we’ve seen no pictures of their single-source device.

[m.j_433]

The impression I get from the CEO statements and interviews is the arc will do it all. It will be the single source when needed as well as the 3-D imager/mammo/angio/fluoro unit when needed. They promote the multispectral aspect as being able to quickly change from one modality to another.

This seems to bring up a whole new set of issues like the existence of detectors which could be this flexible. Also, trying to position patients in the arc for various types of CR imaging would be difficult if not impossible.

[m.j_433]

Its like the whole plan was developed between the business/sales people and the engineers with a complete lack of clinical perspective.

[julie.young_645]

The CEO doesn’t know an X-ray from Ray Charles. I’m surprised he isn’t claiming the damn thing can measure your IQ and predict the exact date and time of your death. 

[julie.young_645]

Yeah, and William Rankin invented X-rays. I have no words.

[satyanar]

I asked earlier if anyone knew them. I am guessing they really have not even looked at what they are endorsing. How could a CT specialist at UW believe what they are proposing?

[JohnnyFever]

Direction of the x-ray through tissue does theoretically make a difference due to beam hardening

[JohnnyFever]

PA vs AP chest radiograph comes to mind

[satyanar]

Quote from RoleCall

Direction of the x-ray through tissue does theoretically make a difference due to beam hardening

You should go over to seeking alpha and have a discussion with Richard. 

[m.j_433]

Ive been interacting with him just out of curiosity. He seems to have an engineering background. He is also a writer for Seeking Alpha and Im getting the sense that hes working on a new bear thesis so I have been feeding him some information.

[satyanar]

Ah. Interesting. That would make sense.

[satyanar]

Quote from n.rad

Ive been interacting with him just out of curiosity. He seems to have an engineering background. He is also a writer for Seeking Alpha and Im getting the sense that hes working on a new bear thesis so I have been feeding him some information.

 
I wonder if any other participants are watching the discussion. At first they attacked RXR. Now they are just quiet.

[nkkashif]

Can you give some reference or proof that shows that the direction of the x-ray through tissue does make a PRACTICAL difference (given all the other noise)?  I don’t think PA vs AP chest radiograph is relevant here – almost all of the rays in the two projections travel different paths through the chest.

[JohnnyFever]

The path isn’t that different

[satyanar]

RXR. You are correct. Its a dumb question. Most of us if involved in equipment decisions are going to be looking at images. Tube data will have nothing to do with it. Better find the radiology physicist board. We were too busy learning the imaging characteristics and pathophysiology of disease. 

[nkkashif]

I believe the path isn’t that different only if the X-ray source is very far or all the beams are “parallel” rays.  For a point source (or close to a point source), most of the paths are different.   See how this particular ray below cannot be replicated – the “point source” in the other direction simply does not exist. [image]https://i.ibb.co/zX4CHhK/ap-pa.png[/image]

[satyanar]

Quote from richard.x.roe

I believe the path isn’t that different only if the X-ray source is very far or all the beams are “parallel” rays.  For a point source (or close to a point source), most of the paths are different.   See how this particular ray below cannot be replicated – the “point source” in the other direction simply does not exist. [image]https://i.ibb.co/zX4CHhK/ap-pa.png[/image]

 
This diagram shows why some on here have said what the Nanox Arc [b]might [/b]be able to do is tomosynthesis. Computed tomography is out of the question with their architecture.

[nkkashif]

But I have seen no proof that the quality of the resulting voxel reconstruction (and ability to view any slices) won’t approach the state-of-the-art CT images.  Buzug 2008 ( [link=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574]https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574[/link] ) seems to agree with me – the math is more complicated, but it seems using 11 fast-switching wide-cone-beam sources positioned in say 150 degree ARC with a large set of high-resolution fast flat detectors underneath could do it.  Say, in 10 years.
 

Quote from Thread Enhancer

This diagram shows why some on here have said what the Nanox Arc [b]might [/b]be able to do is tomosynthesis. Computed tomography is out of the question with their architecture.

[satyanar]

Quote from richard.x.roe

But I have seen no proof that the quality of the resulting voxel reconstruction (and ability to view any slices) won’t approach the state-of-the-art CT images.  Buzug 2008 ( [link=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574]https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574[/link] ) seems to agree with me – the math is more complicated, but it seems using 11 fast-switching wide-cone-beam sources positioned in say 150 degree ARC with a large set of high-resolution fast flat detectors underneath could do it.  Say, in 10 years.

Quote from Thread Enhancer

This diagram shows why some on here have said what the Nanox Arc [b]might [/b]be able to do is tomosynthesis. Computed tomography is out of the question with their architecture.

 
OK fine. You are correct. This is just the wrong place to discuss high level x-ray physics. Most here don’t have enough knowledge or experience. What we do have is a lot of experience in reading images and knowing what is good quality from a visual perspective. I am unsure what you are hoping to get of us? It sounds as if you are trying to prove a certain level of fraud based on technical data. We are unlikely to be able to help.

[nkkashif]

Fine, forget high-level physics or math, but I do not accept that radiologists only care about the good quality of pictures from a visual perspective.  What about ALARA?

[satyanar]

Of course ALARA matters. I never said image quality is all we care about. It just happens to be where we will be most helpful in the decision making process for new equipment. That was the question you posed. I see where you are going but you are being too obtuse to get much out of us. You can stop with the line of questioning that feels like a test of our competency to start.

[JohnnyFever]

Your line of questions misses the mark of relevancy, we’re just not interested in teaching high level physics to a stranger online

[ruszja]

Quote from richard.x.roe

But I have seen no proof that the quality of the resulting voxel reconstruction (and ability to view any slices) won’t approach the state-of-the-art CT images.  Buzug 2008 ( [link=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574]https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642072574[/link] ) seems to agree with me – the math is more complicated, but it seems using 11 fast-switching wide-cone-beam sources positioned in say 150 degree ARC with a large set of high-resolution fast flat detectors underneath could do it.  Say, in 10 years.

 
Yes, one of these days, we may see (another) CT scanner that doesn’t physically rotate a source and detector. Yet I dont see any of the elements required to make this happen in the pictures of the Nanox science project.

[m.j_433]

The only bullish type of argument Ive ever seen to the type of discussion were having is youre stuck on what legacy technology is capable of

Which is actually correct as I am stuck on technology obeying the laws of physics.

[spooky]

This is getting way off topic – 
“I’m not sure about the details of the NKLA deal with GM. I just know what my hedge fund manager friends have to say about the current situation where GM can keep the stock price boosted on something that has zero value just because they are GM.”
 
A friend owns a trucking company he tells me electric technology alone will not work for long haul trips because of the space/weight requirements of the batteries.  It will work for short haul.  The holy grail of EV long haul trucks is H2/electric.  Last time I checked Hyliion Holdings Corp (HYLN) is going to build hydrogen/electric powertrains that can be used by most big rig mfgrs. 

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from zeuses

This is getting way off topic – 
“I’m not sure about the details of the NKLA deal with GM. I just know what my hedge fund manager friends have to say about the current situation where GM can keep the stock price boosted on something that has zero value just because they are GM.”

A friend owns a trucking company he tells me electric technology alone will not work for long haul trips because of the space/weight requirements of the batteries.  It will work for short haul.  The holy grail of EV long haul trucks is H2/electric.  Last time I checked Hyliion Holdings Corp (HYLN) is going to build hydrogen/electric powertrains that can be used by most big rig mfgrs. 

 
1. This is way off topic
2. Your friend is a truck driver, not an engineer studying the latest designs to improve energy density of batteries.  Neither are we.
3. At least Nikola figured out how to stencil “H2” on the side of its pusher.
4. There is a big difference between someone that wants to built a new powertrain, vs someone that can and will build a new powertrain.
5. As someone else here reminded you already, make sure your fancy new powertrain has the correct flux capacitor installed.

[ruszja]

Quote from vaporfly

I’m pretty sure the tungsten cathodes typically need to be heated to a very high temperature to emit enough electrons with the required energy levels. So Nanox was correct about this – if you can create a functional x-ray tube around a cold cathode, it is like going from an incandescent bulb to an LED bulb.

 
Its not. A substantial portion of the heat in a x-ray tube is generated on the anode side due to the energetically inefficient process that converts electron bombardment into x-rays via the ‘bremsstrahlung’ mechanism.  The heated filament is a minor energy input into the entire tube assembly. The only thing you are ‘saving’ on the energy equation by going to a cold cathode is a few watts, you are still dealing with kilowatts worth of energy output on the anode side. All the mumbo-jumbo about electronically focussing is not going to change the fact that you have to reject X kiljoules in energy in your device, except that you are doing so from 20/30/50 little tubes with static anodes rather than one big one with a rotating anode, oil bath and a cooler.

[ruszja]

Again, miniaturized solid-state tubes offer lots of potential as they eliminate certain design constraints in a scanner. But they dont suspend the laws of physics.

[m.j_433]

That all makes sense but how about this argument? NNOX to da moon!!!

[julie.young_645]

Quote from n.rad

That all makes sense but how about this argument? NNOX to da moon!!!

 
 
SHHHHHH! That’s what they are going to reveal at RSNA! Don’t tell anyone!

[jdlebamoff_432]

Quote from fw

Quote from vaporfly

I’m pretty sure the tungsten cathodes typically need to be heated to a very high temperature to emit enough electrons with the required energy levels. So Nanox was correct about this – if you can create a functional x-ray tube around a cold cathode, it is like going from an incandescent bulb to an LED bulb.

Its not. A substantial portion of the heat in a x-ray tube is generated on the anode side due to the energetically inefficient process that converts electron bombardment into x-rays via the ‘bremsstrahlung’ mechanism.  The heated filament is a minor energy input into the entire tube assembly. The only thing you are ‘saving’ on the energy equation by going to a cold cathode is a few watts, you are still dealing with kilowatts worth of energy output on the anode side. All the mumbo-jumbo about electronically focussing is not going to change the fact that you have to reject X kiljoules in energy in your device, except that you are doing so from 20/30/50 little tubes with static anodes rather than one big one with a rotating anode, oil bath and a cooler.

 
fw, this is way beyond my pay grade!  I had assumed that, since the ultimate source of the energy is coming from the cathode, a colder cathode would automatically mean less heat on the anode.  But I see your point, that bremsstrahlung itself is inefficient, so however you generate your electrons, you still have to deal with the heat on the anode.  Reminds me that even in the LED bulb comparison, while the light source itself is very energy efficient, in order to turn blue LED into white light, you need a bulb casing with phosphorus coating that will still generate some heat.
 
Thanks for the education!  If you have time, I would love to get your thoughts on the CareStream machine that I keep asking about.  It sounds like they were able to save a lot of weight with their cathode/tube.

[ruszja]

Quote from vaporfly

Thanks for the education!  If you have time, I would love to get your thoughts on the CareStream machine that I keep asking about.  It sounds like they were able to save a lot of weight with their cathode/tube.

 
I have no experience with that machine. Looks promising.

[m.j_433]

NNOX to present at RSNA on Wednesday, December 2nd at 5pm followed by Q&A

[julie.young_645]

As part of the meeting? From McCormick? They’ll be the only ones there. As a zoom from Israel with the opportunity to introduce whatever fake video they wish? 

[willian]

I’m a PhD physicst and patent attorney living in Israel and thus in a particularly good position to attempt to understand whether Nanox is for real or not.
I’ve done a detailed analysis of the Nanox patents [link=https://www.rutmanip.com/post/nanox_imaging]here.[/link]
I’ve also collected some bits of info beyond the patents and put them there.
One question I ran up against that forum members might be able to help me with is:
Small cheap sources like [link=https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/8ma-x-rays-Dental-x-ray_62498570939.html?spm=a2700.galleryofferlist.normal_offer.d_image.4d7030fcb7UloA]this[/link] exist for dental work – why are these not suitable for a CT and/or body scanner?
(The cheap tube is ~600W while a CT tube can be e.g. 9KW – so I’m assuming you’d use 90/6 cheap tubes to reach the same average power as the rather expensive ($50,000 ?) CT tube. )
If not , why not  (e.g. all the power has to come from the same direction)  and would the same problems also obtain with a cold cathode distributed source such as the one Nanox claims to have developed?