1993
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1910290319
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A cylindrically symmetric magnetic shield for a large‐bore 3.0 Tesla magnet

Abstract: A 3.0 Tesla, 0.80-m bore magnet replaced our previous 1.9 Tesla, 0.76-m magnet. The 3.0 Tesla replacement magnet had a dipole moment of 1.7 with respect to that of the 1.9 Tesla magnet. The pre-existing cylindrically symmetric passive steel shielding was modified to confine the fringe fields of the replacement magnet to match those of the previous magnet. A cylindrically symmetric inner shield insert of about 20,000 kg was designed, fabricated, and installed. Upon energization of the magnet, the combined shiel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 4 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Magnetic resonance images are acquired by fast‐oscillating EM fields in a strong static magnetic field environment. To avoid EM interference, the inserted systems typically encapsulate electronic components inside a shielding Faraday enclosure to preserve the performances of both MRI and the inserted device . Without sufficient shielding designs, intense radiofrequency (RF) fields in the megahertz range could disturb the device electronics or, reciprocally, the noise generated from the device could corrupt the MRI image .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Magnetic resonance images are acquired by fast‐oscillating EM fields in a strong static magnetic field environment. To avoid EM interference, the inserted systems typically encapsulate electronic components inside a shielding Faraday enclosure to preserve the performances of both MRI and the inserted device . Without sufficient shielding designs, intense radiofrequency (RF) fields in the megahertz range could disturb the device electronics or, reciprocally, the noise generated from the device could corrupt the MRI image .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%