Is a Top View Possible with Ultrasound Imaging? Understanding the Misconceptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shaybay92
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ultrasound
AI Thread Summary
Ultrasound imaging typically provides cross-sectional views rather than top views, as the transducer emits sound waves that reflect off internal structures. When placed on the body, the transducer captures data from various angles, creating a two-dimensional image on the screen. The misconception arises from the expectation of a top-down perspective, which does not account for the three-dimensional nature of the body. Designing a transducer to display top views would require advanced technology to synthesize data from multiple dimensions. Understanding these principles clarifies how ultrasound images are formed and interpreted.
Shaybay92
Messages
122
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm having trouble understanding exactly how the image goes from a transducer to the screen... When they put the transducer on the top of your stomach say, does this give a cross section view, from the side of your body rather than a top view as you would expect? Because if it gave a top view, how would the distances etc form a picture? It would all be in the one spot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shaybay92 said:

Homework Statement



I'm having trouble understanding exactly how the image goes from a transducer to the screen... When they put the transducer on the top of your stomach say, does this give a cross section view, from the side of your body rather than a top view as you would expect? Because if it gave a top view, how would the distances etc form a picture? It would all be in the one spot

So the transducer must not be 1-dimensional. What do your google and wiki searches turn up for ultrasound transducers? If you were going to design one to show those displays, how would you do it?
 

Thread 'Errors and significant figures'

I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
View full post »
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
View full post »

Similar threads

Pulse repetition frequency ultrasound confusion
Replies
7
Views
3K
Critical angle: find the depth of the fish looking up
Replies
4
Views
3K
Pulse vs Continuous transducers (Ultrasound)
Replies
1
Views
15K
Effect of different magnetic fields on a magnetic dipole
Replies
25
Views
1K
B Confusing diagram of a rotating coil in a magnetic field
Replies
4
Views
2K
Frictional Torque of a Spinning Top
Replies
6
Views
3K
Force of water against a dam gate
Replies
29
Views
3K
I Factors that influence depth of field
2
Replies
77
Views
5K
Stargazing Level of details in prime focus vs eyepiece images
5
Replies
226
Views
15K
Understanding the electric force felt by the charges on a sphere
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top