[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: T. bataar eggs...again - Rowe
>Crpntr@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth Carpenter) writes:
>> hi tech (CAT, X-ray, MRI) have proven to be nearly a flop with work
>> on eggs. It is important to remember that most of these techniques
>> rely on density differences. Thus, if the bone is the same density
>> as the infilled matrix, then nothing shows up.
>Yes, CT (aka CAT) and standard X-rays rely on electron density
>differences in order to generate an image. However, MRI typically
>measures the local chemical environment in which hydrogen atoms find
>themselves. How much work has gone into using MRI on fossil samples?
>I would expect that minerals with differing hydrations would give you
>differing signals which could be extracted by a standard MRI system.
>Also, high energy MRI scanners look for differences in the chemical
>environments in which phosphorus atoms reside. Does anybody have any
>idea how much residual phosphorus might remain in fossil bone as
>compared to the matrix?
>As an aside, emission computed tomographic techniques (e.g. PET,
>SPECT) cannot be used for these purposes since they require the
>injection of circulating radioisotopes. Just in case anybody had any
>additional hopes I figured I should squash them early. Sorry to be a
>party pooper :-)
>Mickey Rowe (email@example.com)
I do not know how many specimens of eggs have been MRI'd. I still have
hopes that a way will be found to look inside eggs to determine
conclusively whether or not there are embryo bones. The best method
remains, "Break it with a hammer!"