/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3549372]

It's pretty much done. Enjoy.

On a related note, lets see some more infographics.

[Anonymous No.3549376]

Very nice, OP.

[Anonymous No.3549390]

>>3549376
thanks

[Anonymous No.3549406]

[Anonymous No.3549415]

[Anonymous No.3549420]

>>3549372
so what your saying is that MRI's operate on miracles?

[Anonymous No.3549425]

>>3549420
That is exactly what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.3549428]

[Anonymous No.3549430]

>>3549372
You forgot to mention God and Jesus in your graphic.

[Anonymous No.3549434]

[Anonymous No.3549438]

>>3549430
No, I really didn't.

[Anonymous No.3549445]

[Anonymous No.3549458]

I'm just about done??? Lol fag.. newfag trolling won't work on people who actually use /sci/ regularly.

Stop pretending you made shit you didn't make.

[Anonymous No.3549460]

[Anonymous No.3549472]

>>3549458
It doesn't really matter if you believe me or not. Just enjoy it. I made this in my free time over the course of two weeks. I posted an incomplete version on here before. I'm not using my trip to avoid the flood of questions that keeps happening for some reason when I do.

[Anonymous No.3549484]

[Anonymous No.3549492]

>>3549472
What changes did you make in the last 2 weeks then?

[Anonymous No.3549500]

>>3549458
>Lol fag.. newfag trolling
I'll bet you're the type of moron who feeds the religion threads and nothing else. OPs story checks out (http://archive.gentoomen.org/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/3484060)) Good job faggot, you are the cancer killing /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3549501]

>>3549492
Just added the last part (fMRI) and added some shading to the images.

[Anonymous No.3549521]

[Anonymous No.3549530]

>>3549521
That's actually quite useful. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.3549540]

>>3549372
forgot that picture

[Anonymous No.3549550]

>>3549540
Lol. Seriously though, is there any part which needs a more thorough explanation? I tried to explain everything as succinct as possible, but these concepts are obviously quite complex so it's difficult for me to judge if this is readable for a layperson.

[Anonymous No.3549559]

>>3549550
New to the thread, here. Are you sure that the ONLY alignments are aligned and antialigned? I seem to remember something about using EM radiation to excited the nuclei into a non-aligned state that precesses with a frequency proportional to the field. An anti-aligned spin wouldn't precess.

[Anonymous No.3549574]

>>3549559
The axis of precession is aligned or anti-aligned with the field. Even after excitation this is true. I left precession out because it would complicate things a whole lot more.

[Anonymous No.3549577]

>>3549574
The AXIS of precession, sure. But the spin itself is not, right?

[Anonymous No.3549582]

>>3549577
Correct.

[Anonymous No.3549593]

>>3549582
Then I find the second and third sentences to be very misleading.

[Anonymous No.3549604]

>>3549593
I guess I'll incorporate precession into it as well. I usually favor accuracy over simplicity anyway. I opted to leave it out because it's not really necessary for an understanding on a conceptual level. You are right though, it is technically wrong. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.3549723]

>>3549593
How's this?

[Anonymous No.3549726]

>>3549723
LOL
Rather content-free this time around.

[Anonymous No.3549731]

>>3549723
Crap, wrong image. Let me try that again

[Anonymous No.3549757]

>>3549731
Fuck. I'm sorry, but it's WORSE now, because it suggests that nuclear spin means that something is physically spinning.

How about what you had before, but with something like "the spin is normally aligned with the field, but electromagnetic radiation can excite the nuclei and move the spin into a higher energy state, causing the spin vector to precess around the field like a top that is slightly tilted."

I'm fine with simple or "because I say that's what it does" explanations, but not with outright wrong ones. Don't explain spin if you're going to lie about it.

[Anonymous No.3549771]

>>3549723

That laughed me good.

[Anonymous No.3549786]

>>3549757
Fair enough. I'll make some more changes.

[Anonymous No.3549813]

>>3549786
There we go. Just to make clear, excitation does not make the nuclei precess, they already precess. It just increases the proportion of anti-aligned nuclei.

[Anonymous No.3549830]

>>3549813
Really? This is where I admit some ignorance. How is there precession in the groundstate? Isn't the spin aligned with the field? Or is the groundstate not completely aligned for some reason I have overlooked?

[Anonymous No.3549906]

>>3549830
It's the B0 field which makes the particles precess. The only difference between on/off RF stimulation is the energy state (indexed by magnetization in the longitudinal plane) and the frequency of precession.

[Anonymous No.3549916]

>>3549906
I have to say though, it's been a while since I've thoroughly reviewed this stuff. I'm not a physicist, after all.

[Anonymous No.3549968]

too much science and not enough religion in this thread

[Anonymous No.3549998]

>>3549968
-> >>3549420

[Anonymous No.3550039]

>>3549813
better than original imho