Reading through the paper, in essence, they managed to overcome the non-circular geometry of having linear CNT multi-beam emitters by using reconstructive algorithms that reduced the image artefacts that were shown in prior studies using linear CNT multi-beam emitters.
The micro x CT imagers for the baggage scanner and stroke diagnostic applications have opted to sidestep the issues of having linear multibeam emitters and the image artefacts that result from this configuration, by instead arranging an array of single emitters in a circular geometry which they then sequentially switch on.
I understand the decision to opt for single emitters for these applications over having a multi-emitter. This does not address the fact that it can be done with a multi-beam emitter with advanced reconstructive algorithms. I feel like the statements made about how the licencing of the multi-beams doesn't conflict with the current products in development, are somewhat misleading. If there is a sufficient monetary incentive on the part of Varex to enter these domains, I think they could do so. I also don't know what the process of purchasing the licence for the technology back from Varex would entail.
Look at the quality of the images they got using multi-beams and better reconstructive algorithms:
The real reason for the deal with Varex is capital. This constant talk of 'it gives recognition of our technology as world-leading' is sidestepping a conversation as to what Varex has in the plans by using the technology they've licenced out. Also, this isn't academia, why is recognition in the industry by other companies so vitally important right now? If the products are far better, the recognition we need will be from customers, and the flow-on effect of that will be the recognition by those in the industry that they're losing market share to Micro-x, then our competitors will have their eyes on collaborating and distributing Micro-X products.
Also, it doesn't appear that any effort has been made to market the fact that the amount of radiation a patient would be exposed to is reduced using CNT emitters, given its instantaneously switched on and off. Wouldn't this be the first thing you'd focus on?? If you can argue that your product exposes patients to a reduced level of ionizing radiation, customers would have an ethical obligation to purchase your product over conventional emitters. Instead, they're focusing on the lightweight factor, which is an additional benefit, but if you pair this square wave emission with sensitive detectors - you can actually make a positive difference to the long-term health of patients, or those patients can receive more regular scans to enable increased monitoring.
I'm probably missing something. I'm not an expert in this area so take all my comments with a grain of salt, but at the same time no explicit clarification of these issues by management seem to have been made to my knowledge.
