Massive New CT Scanner Assesses Car Crash Data

cartechboy writes "If you've ever been in a serious car accident, you've probably had a CT scan to give doctors a clearer idea of your injuries. Soon, your car might get a CT scan, too. Scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute have developed a giant new CT scanner (dubbed, yes, XXL CT) that can scan very large objects, like cars. It Turns out a CT scan of a post-crash vehicle offers an unprecedented precision look at the internal damage details, without disturbing the wreckage further. A crashed car is hoisted onto a turntable, and as it turns, two X-ray detectors on either side scan it. Then multiple images are merged into a single, three-dimensional CT scan. The scanner also can handle airplane wings and shipping containers, which means there may be possible anti-terrorism uses in the future."

Comments

if this scanner is like their best-known product

[themushroom]

Someone needs to develop a LAME version of the CT scanner to avoid licensing charges.

NDT for Cars

[GiganticLyingMouth]

CT Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) has been done on airplanes for many years. Is this special or different in any way? Is the primary innovation just that it's being applied to cars now? The description in the summary makes it sound pretty mundane; "... hoisted onto a turntable, and as it turns, two X-ray detectors on either side scan it. Then multiple images are merged into a single, three-dimensional CT scan". This is pretty much the protocol for any industrial CT imaging.

And by "anti-terrorism" uses

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

We mean "anti-citizen" uses. Coming soon to a highway checkpoint near you.

Re:And by "anti-terrorism" uses

[wvmarle]

I was thinking in similar lines.

But for me, "anti-terrorism" is more like "we want government subsidies for our project!".

Really?

[onyxruby]

Does someone really think they are going to take a shipping containers worth of terrorist bad stuff and move it to a multimillion dollar turntable to scan it? To quote the original article

"It works as follows: First, the object to be examined is hoisted onto a giant turntable."

Is the technology neat - sure. Is this useful for looking at all kinds of things and showing us engineering data that we other like - sure. Is this really useful to help against smuggling of everything from drugs to humans - sure. However the idea that this going to somehow be trotted out for a terrorism scare is just plain absurd.

Unless your already at the dock this isn't going to do you a lot of good. Any scanner big enough to hoist a shipping container onto it's turntable isn't likely going to be thought of as "portable". This technology would probably pay for itself in terms of man hours saved for custom officials as well as shippers and is probably well worth buying for that reason alone. All that being said, let's stay grounded and keep things firmly rooted in reality, okay?

Shipping container anti terrorism

[OzPeter]

Currently around 10 million shipping containers arrive in the USA every year. So how many of these devices do you think you need in order to make an impact? Not only do you have that volume to deal with, but given the throughput at a multi-modal shipping port, you'll need to be scanning a container pretty damn quick in order not to impeded operations.

In addition the gubmint is already behind in scanning all shipping containers for radio-active materials. They are supposed to be checking 100% of inbound containers, but that has been costed in the order of $16 billion (with a pinkie finger, and a B), and there doesn't seem to be money for it.

Port security: U.S. fails to meet deadline for scanning of cargo containers

Re:Shipping container anti terrorism

[wvmarle]

Currently around 10 million shipping containers arrive in the USA every year. So how many of these devices do you think you need in order to make an impact? Not only do you have that volume to deal with, but given the throughput at a multi-modal shipping port, you'll need to be scanning a container pretty damn quick in order not to impeded operations.

In addition the gubmint is already behind in scanning all shipping containers for radio-active materials. They are supposed to be checking 100% of inbound containers, but that has been costed in the order of $16 billion (with a pinkie finger, and a B), and there doesn't seem to be money for it.

Port security: U.S. fails to meet deadline for scanning of cargo containers

Which is a good reason to call it "anti-terrorism". Because if there is anything that's getting assigned extra budget these days without considering actual effectiveness, it's that.

How much will one of these scans cost...

[rnturn]

... and how high a mucky-muck will you have to be to warrant one of these scans? Is the the intent to find some kind of hidden damage that an insurance adjuster missed? And who pays for the CT scan? Just how valuable would the car need to be to deserve this kind of post-accident analysis?

The shipping container scan sounds like a good idea but the cost of these things would have to come way, way down before they got widespread use. If they aren't used at every port (because of the cost) the terrorists will just change their shipping destinations to ports that aren't equipped with these scanners.

Re:How much will one of these scans cost...

[techno-vampire]

I'm only guessing, here, but it sounds like the main use for this is during crash testing of new designs. That way you can see just what happened deep inside of the car's body without having to cut your way in. And, while you're at it, you can also investigate what condition those parts that you'd otherwise have to cut are in, which just might tell you something important. I doubt that something like this would ever become part of routine accident investigation, both because of the cost of using it and because in most cases you don't need that detailed an examination.