3 ms·

For the curious who want more information, I found a paper discussing the general issues involved in "low-field" MRI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/

For the curious who want more information, I found a paper discussing the general issues involved in "low-field" MRI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmri.26637 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmri.26637 For their purposes, "low-field" goes down to 0.25T, which is still somewhat higher than the machine linked here, but they extrapolate values of some of the parameters all the way down to 0. (And it seems like the general principles are mostly the same.)

SimplyUnknown 6y ago
There is some renewed interest in low field scanners. Past four decades have mainly been pushing for higher fields to improve SNR. But low field has a few advantages: - no need for superconducting magnets. This is a big win for developing countries and portable systems. - better geometric accuracy. While not an show stopper as it can be corrected for, but low field exhibits better geometric accuracy as you move away from isocenter, which is of extra concern with e.g. radiotherapy applications. - more patient comfort as lower field strengths need less strong gradients thus less chance for PNS (involuntary muscle twitches due electric fields induced in the nerves)