You sir, who likes to call other people idiots, seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the relationship between frequency and wavelength, as well as the basics of using an internet search engine.
And then there's people who lack the fundamental understanding that sound waves do not propagete at lightspeed.
No, this sounds like bullshit pseudoscience to me, in the same vein as ions, magnets, and energy auras.
In that case you need to get a clue.
Ultrasound doesn't magically cause clotting. Ultrasound causes heating. With most diagnostic devices, this effect is pretty much negligible and/or needs to be kept below a certain threshold according to (insert local medical device agency, for example FDA) regulations.
However, if you direct several strong ultrasound sources at a certain volume of tissue (hence "focused ultrasound"), the heating effect becomes significant enough to cause clotting (you don't need to heat blood all that much to cause clotting).
Yes - ultrasound at a distance (specifically refer to the thermoelastic regime).
Yeah, riiiight.
If you manage to create enough ultrasound energy this way to clot blood, you've probably burnt a hole into the victim with the laser already. Also, the technology requires focused ultrasound, i.e. you need a way to direct the ultrasound beams. The laser things most definitely doesn't do that.
It goes back to what coal is. It's basically compressed, heated animal humus, a substance not paticularly known for its radiactivity.
Then why does it contain more uranium than the soil, plus lots of other stuff you wouldn't really expect in plants and animals (heavy metals) ? Maybe it's because these substances had a few million years to seep into the coal ?
or you'd have to find a way to increase the rate of the radioactive decay by many orders of magnitude. the latter is possible. Its called a nuclear bomb.
No, no, no.
Please stop spreading this BS. Nuclear fission and nuclear decay are two entirely different nuclear reactions. Decay happens spontaneously, fission requires the nucleus to react with a neutron.
Being able to change the decay rate of a material would pretty much rattle the foundations of modern physics. Pretty much every textbook will tell you that there is absofrickinlutely no way to affect the decay rate of a certain type of nucleus as long as you stay within the same inertial system (yes, time dilation will affect the observed decay rate in the second inertial system).
Nu-uh. He was born in Germany and had several different citizenships during his life, and was even stateless for a few years. He had Swiss and US citizenship when he died.
What I haven't seen anyone yet mention is the possibility that these tourniquets could be scanned for.
You haven't seen it because it's an absolute non-issue.
Surely they give off quite a bit of energy, and even if only very short range, a decent scanner with a scalable depth setting could conceivably locate it.
In almost any event, it is much, much more simple just to search for the person the thing is attached to. Unless you have lost one that is not attached to a person. Also, the ultrasound is directed into the patient. Very little of it manages to get out again.
This tourniquet could make the wounded into quite noticeable targets.
Wounded people are generally easy to find. Trails of blood, noise, uncontrolled movement, all that stuff.
What about their buddy/buddies who applied the thing in the first place ? I'm sure they're nearby and quite ready to blow your head off.
What are the possibilities of adapting jamming devices already employed to cover up the ultrasonic frequencies?
Oh yeah. Carry a jammer with you that will output much, much more energy than the tourniquet. What was that about being a target again ?
How soon till there're few serviceable airwaves?
Hold it. You're confusing sound waves and radio waves here, right ?
The process of wave mixing and spread spectrum allows low frequency carriers to carry higher frequencies.
That still doesn't do anything about the huge acoustic impedance difference between air and tissue. The victim would end up with burns on his skin rather than blood clots inside his body.
Also shock waves with infinite harmonics do the exact same thing (AKA explosions) so the technology will get perfected.
Shock waves are too brief to do any meaningful heating to tissue. They'll rip off your arm if anything.
Because the first thing that's going to happen when your clot's not big enough is that it's going to go to your lung. Or heart. Or brain.
So, would you rather take a chance at having a blood clot go into one of your vital organs, or bleed to death in the next three minutes ? Take your pick, but don't take your time.
Slashdot Mirror
And then there's people who lack the fundamental understanding that sound waves do not propagete at lightspeed.
And there I had hoped that another dark age was impossible. But it seems that information is as easy to lose now as it was 1000+ years ago.
In that case you need to get a clue.
Ultrasound doesn't magically cause clotting. Ultrasound causes heating. With most diagnostic devices, this effect is pretty much negligible and/or needs to be kept below a certain threshold according to (insert local medical device agency, for example FDA) regulations.
However, if you direct several strong ultrasound sources at a certain volume of tissue (hence "focused ultrasound"), the heating effect becomes significant enough to cause clotting (you don't need to heat blood all that much to cause clotting).
Yeah, riiiight.
If you manage to create enough ultrasound energy this way to clot blood, you've probably burnt a hole into the victim with the laser already. Also, the technology requires focused ultrasound, i.e. you need a way to direct the ultrasound beams. The laser things most definitely doesn't do that.
It doesn't work at a distance. Period.
So they had a nice, clean cut instead of a mangled mess where you probably cannot find the artery.
Also, I'd like to see this power applied to an internal injury.
Ask any Islamist and he'll tell you that the woman was basically nude.
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_bac
Besides, if you can afford to keep the thing running, see my previous posting.
The lethal concentration of chlorine is ~1000 ppm, the lethal concentration for ozone is around 70 ppm.
Between the two, I know which I would prefer to breathe in a 1% solution.
Chlorine ? It's a gamble, but definitely less deadly than ozone.
You're driving a foreign luxury car and therefore have money.
... for any radioactive cat. Get stuck in a ~0K freezer and watch your 18 half-lives evaporate.
with a condition not to congregate with three or more other youths.
Then why does it contain more uranium than the soil, plus lots of other stuff you wouldn't really expect in plants and animals (heavy metals) ? Maybe it's because these substances had a few million years to seep into the coal ?
Also, uranium isn't the only radioactive pollutant in coal.
Only if you're in an orbit in the first place. If aren't orbiting the gravity well, going down into it is just a matter of free fall.
No, no, no.
Please stop spreading this BS. Nuclear fission and nuclear decay are two entirely different nuclear reactions. Decay happens spontaneously, fission requires the nucleus to react with a neutron.
Being able to change the decay rate of a material would pretty much rattle the foundations of modern physics. Pretty much every textbook will tell you that there is absofrickinlutely no way to affect the decay rate of a certain type of nucleus as long as you stay within the same inertial system (yes, time dilation will affect the observed decay rate in the second inertial system).
Nu-uh. He was born in Germany and had several different citizenships during his life, and was even stateless for a few years. He had Swiss and US citizenship when he died.
Well, you see, if ve had stuck to actual science instead of World Wars, ve would have working fusion reactors by now.
You haven't seen it because it's an absolute non-issue.
Surely they give off quite a bit of energy, and even if only very short range, a decent scanner with a scalable depth setting could conceivably locate it.
In almost any event, it is much, much more simple just to search for the person the thing is attached to. Unless you have lost one that is not attached to a person. Also, the ultrasound is directed into the patient. Very little of it manages to get out again.
This tourniquet could make the wounded into quite noticeable targets.
Wounded people are generally easy to find. Trails of blood, noise, uncontrolled movement, all that stuff.
What about their buddy/buddies who applied the thing in the first place ? I'm sure they're nearby and quite ready to blow your head off.
What are the possibilities of adapting jamming devices already employed to cover up the ultrasonic frequencies?
Oh yeah. Carry a jammer with you that will output much, much more energy than the tourniquet. What was that about being a target again ?
How soon till there're few serviceable airwaves?
Hold it. You're confusing sound waves and radio waves here, right ?
Oops. It does say so in the article. Guess I shoulda read it twice. Where's my coffee ?
The device is supposed to recognize automatically if and where the injury is. That's where the $51M price tag for the research comes from.
And you're going to apply fire to an internal injury how ?
That still doesn't do anything about the huge acoustic impedance difference between air and tissue. The victim would end up with burns on his skin rather than blood clots inside his body.
Also shock waves with infinite harmonics do the exact same thing (AKA explosions) so the technology will get perfected.
Shock waves are too brief to do any meaningful heating to tissue. They'll rip off your arm if anything.
So, would you rather take a chance at having a blood clot go into one of your vital organs, or bleed to death in the next three minutes ? Take your pick, but don't take your time.