(www.lumafield.com)

Show context

xattt ◴[26 Sep 25 23:14 UTC] No.45392000[source]▶

I went down their rabbit hole, and a conventional tech CT is 10 hours??

kg ◴[26 Sep 25 23:40 UTC] No.45392146[source]▶

>>45392000 #

My understanding is that material composition can make a CT scan take a really long time. It makes sense to me that scanning a battery would be pretty slow, given what they're made out of.

replies(1): >>45392378 #

1. xattt ◴[27 Sep 25 00:26 UTC] No.45392378[source]▶

>>45392146 #

I just assumed it would be impractical due to physical changes of the object from multi-hour exposure to X-ray energy.

replies(2): >>45393541 #>>45398008 #

2. kragen ◴[27 Sep 25 06:14 UTC] No.45393541[source]▶

>>45392378 (TP) #

I don't think ionizing atoms inside a battery will harm it. They don't have DNA.

replies(1): >>45394240 #

3. adwn ◴[27 Sep 25 09:00 UTC] No.45394240[source]▶

>>45393541 #

I don't know about batteries, but ionizing radiation can definitely permanently damage microelectronics, and those don't have DNA either.

replies(2): >>45396197 #>>45396475 #

4. VectorLock ◴[27 Sep 25 14:51 UTC] No.45396197{3}[source]▶

>>45394240 #

Thankfully functionality isn't usually necessary to get a successful scan, unlike living targets.

5. kragen ◴[27 Sep 25 15:20 UTC] No.45396475{3}[source]▶

>>45394240 #

It can, yes, but batteries also don't have microelectronics.

6. habi ◴[27 Sep 25 17:59 UTC] No.45398008[source]▶

>>45392378 (TP) #

Metal objects don’t change that much due to the radiation.

↑

CT scans of 1k lithium-ion batteries show quality risks in inexpensive cells