Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Technology

Massive New CT Scanner Assesses Car Crash Data 52

Posted by samzenpus
from the take-a-good-look dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massive New CT Scanner Assesses Car Crash Data

Comments Filter:
  • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) on Monday October 07, 2013 @07:05PM (#45064591)
    We mean "anti-citizen" uses. Coming soon to a highway checkpoint near you.
  • by sabt-pestnu (967671) on Monday October 07, 2013 @07:43PM (#45064855)

    Here's a scenario:

    Create a bomb. Attach a trigger designed to be set off by (scanning of particular type). Ship by method scheduled to be scanned.

    1) if it is not scanned, hey, you've got a bomb you can use! Win!
    2) if the trigger fails, you've got a choice...
    2a) the bomb was detected, disarmed, and tracked. Good luck hiding!
    2b) the bomb wasn't detected, see 1).

    or 3) the trigger works, the bomb detonates, demolishing the scanner.

    Bombs are cheaper than scanners, and easier to replace. Win!

    And while the scanner is down, port activity may be slowed or stopped. Win!

    So if you send the bomb to some place you have no intention of picking it up from (say, an Amazon.com warehouse?), you are probably safe just watching the cargo container make its way to where your secondary trigger fires off. Or to the DEA warehouse for repurposing...

  • by wvmarle (1070040) on Monday October 07, 2013 @07:50PM (#45064927)

    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 [washingtonpost.com]

    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.

The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell. -- Confucius

Working...