Using the induced axial magnetic field to measure the root mean square beam size and beam density uniformity of an electron beam in an induction linac

1999 ◽  
Vol 70 (8) ◽  
pp. 3308-3313
Author(s):  
Bruce E. Carlsten
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Electron Beam ◽  
Root Mean Square ◽  
Axial Magnetic Field ◽  
Mean Square ◽  
Beam Size ◽  
Beam Density ◽  
Induction Linac

Micro Magnetic Field Sensor Based On Terfenol-D/PZT/Terfenol-D Magnetoelectric Composites

2011 ◽  
Vol 483 ◽  
pp. 190-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Zheng ◽  
Dan Xie ◽  
Jing Ma ◽  
Tian Ling Ren ◽  
Li Tian Liu
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Root Mean Square ◽  
Magnetic Measurement ◽  
Magnetic Sensor ◽  
Magnetic Field Sensor ◽  
Mean Square ◽  
Magnetoelectric Composites ◽  
New Type ◽  
Field Sensor

A new type of magnetic sensor based on magnetoelectric(ME) composites has been designed and fabricated. The ME composites has a Terfenol-D/PZT/Terfenol-D structure and its ME coefficient is 0.36 V/cm Oe at room temperture. The sensor has AC magnetic measurement ranges from 0.02 Oe to 12 Oe, reaches a sensitivity of 5×10-3 Oe and has a flat response within 15 kHz. The sensor is equipped with a pre-amplifier and an Root Mean Square(RMS) value convertor.

A New Concept for the Collection of an Electron Beam Configured by an Externally Applied Axial Magnetic Field

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 469-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.G. Pagonakis ◽  
J.-P. Hogge ◽  
S. Alberti ◽  
K.A. Avramides ◽  
J.L. Vomvoridis
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Electron Beam ◽  
Axial Magnetic Field

Comparison of Magnetic Tracking and Optical Tracking by Simultaneous Use of Two Independent Frameless Stereotactic Systems

2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (suppl_4) ◽  
pp. ONS-295-ONS-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Mascott
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Root Mean Square ◽  
Magnetic System ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Optical Tracking ◽  
Preoperative Imaging ◽  
Mean Square ◽  
Anatomic Landmarks ◽  
Optical Tracking System ◽  
Magnetic Tracking

Abstract OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the calculated accuracy and the true surgical accuracy of a magnetic and an optical tracking system at surgical registration and during surgery. METHODS: Two Food and Drug Administration-approved, commercially available frameless stereotactic systems were used simultaneously in 70 surgical cases. The Compass Cygnus-PFS system (Compass International, Rochester MN) uses magnetic field referencing and tracking. The StealthStation (Medtronic SNT, Louisville, CO) uses optical referencing and tracking. Registration was performed for each of the systems using adhesive fiducial markers, cranial-implanted markers, anatomic landmarks, or a combination thereof. Preoperative imaging consisted of volumetric computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or both. Calculated accuracy was given by each of the systems as the root mean square after registration. Surgical accuracy was assessed by comparing the anatomic accuracy of each system with a number of recognizable intraoperative anatomic landmarks RESULTS: Calculated accuracy (root mean square) was 1.4 ± 0.6 mm using the magnetic system and 1.4 ± 0.8 mm using the optical tracking system. In the 42 patients with implanted cranial fiducials, the calculated accuracies were 1.0 ± 0.5 mm (magnetic) and 0.9 ± 0.4 mm (optical). True surgical accuracy was considered good (3 mm or less) in both systems in 60 of 70 patients. In two patients, neither system was accurate. In eight patients, one of the two systems was considered inaccurate. Of these, the magnetic system was considered inaccurate three times and the optical system five times. CONCLUSION: Magnetic referencing and tracking was found to be comparable with optical tracking both with regard to calculated and true surgical accuracy. Interference from metal objects in the magnetic field was seen rarely.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document