11-29-2021, 11:27 AM
Some great points but lacking some realities that accompany muon tomography and present limits to the technology as it exists today.
I don't see any points with respect to exposure times and their effects on imaging a dynamic subject.
For example...
Imaging a nuclear reactors tank walls, reactor core tank walls are a fairly static bodies, unless they encounter a failure. Muon tomography works well with fairly static subjects. Imaging a nuclear reactors tank walls can take a few months of exposure time due to the rather low flux of cosmic-ray muons. If an anomaly is detected in the tanks walls after producing an image, it's a possible sign of degradation.
A volcano, and specifically highly active volcanoes such as Kilauea and Mauna Loa are fairly dynamic subjects relative to a reactor cores tank walls.
The internal magma reservoir and the rift zones are in a state of fairly continual change relative to a reactor tank walls.
Assume you create a 3d image of Kilauea internally from current muon tomography methodology. Let's use 9 months as an example for the exposure time needed to gather the desired resolution, might only be 6 months, doesn't matter, it takes many month. We can assume changes that occure during those 9 months will result in blurred areas of the final 3d image.
As an example, 5 seconds of exposure time using a camera to get a shot of a seascape shoreline. We get something like this...
No waves are seen, just a foggy appearance where the wave action occured.
The same will apply to structural and content changes in a muon tomography based image of a highly active volcano. That's due to the exposure time needed to generate an image from such a low flux source (Cosmic-ray muons).
No doubt such images may be of use to local geologists, but to what extent? Certainly they could determine where activity was occuring during that 9 month period of exposure time, but exactly what sort of activity was occuring? Could highly active volcanoes eruptions really be something a muon tomography based image provide, considering it takes such a long exposure time to generate a single image and the image will be blurred in regions that move?
Maybe if you had hundreds or possibly throusands of sensors set up and amongst them, sub groupings that provided a picture once every 9 months and all sequenced to provide you with a single image every day. Then you could sequence the images as they arrive and make a video over a year period with 365 frames total and add to it the following year. That might work to provide potential eruption data.
Now, imagine moving the rocks around in the seascape shoreline image as the image was being exposed. Explaining what happened during the subjects exposure time that's lumped into one image, that takes on a whole other challenge.
I would say, muon tomography as it exists today would be better suited to assist in determination of potential eruption in Yellow Stone volcano or Mount Rainier as well as other dormant type volcanoes. Sure, generate some images of Kilauea and Mauna Loa, they'd be helpful but limited. It's all about limited resources and where they're potentially most beneficial.
I don't see any points with respect to exposure times and their effects on imaging a dynamic subject.
For example...
Imaging a nuclear reactors tank walls, reactor core tank walls are a fairly static bodies, unless they encounter a failure. Muon tomography works well with fairly static subjects. Imaging a nuclear reactors tank walls can take a few months of exposure time due to the rather low flux of cosmic-ray muons. If an anomaly is detected in the tanks walls after producing an image, it's a possible sign of degradation.
A volcano, and specifically highly active volcanoes such as Kilauea and Mauna Loa are fairly dynamic subjects relative to a reactor cores tank walls.
The internal magma reservoir and the rift zones are in a state of fairly continual change relative to a reactor tank walls.
Assume you create a 3d image of Kilauea internally from current muon tomography methodology. Let's use 9 months as an example for the exposure time needed to gather the desired resolution, might only be 6 months, doesn't matter, it takes many month. We can assume changes that occure during those 9 months will result in blurred areas of the final 3d image.
As an example, 5 seconds of exposure time using a camera to get a shot of a seascape shoreline. We get something like this...
No waves are seen, just a foggy appearance where the wave action occured.
The same will apply to structural and content changes in a muon tomography based image of a highly active volcano. That's due to the exposure time needed to generate an image from such a low flux source (Cosmic-ray muons).
No doubt such images may be of use to local geologists, but to what extent? Certainly they could determine where activity was occuring during that 9 month period of exposure time, but exactly what sort of activity was occuring? Could highly active volcanoes eruptions really be something a muon tomography based image provide, considering it takes such a long exposure time to generate a single image and the image will be blurred in regions that move?
Maybe if you had hundreds or possibly throusands of sensors set up and amongst them, sub groupings that provided a picture once every 9 months and all sequenced to provide you with a single image every day. Then you could sequence the images as they arrive and make a video over a year period with 365 frames total and add to it the following year. That might work to provide potential eruption data.
Now, imagine moving the rocks around in the seascape shoreline image as the image was being exposed. Explaining what happened during the subjects exposure time that's lumped into one image, that takes on a whole other challenge.
I would say, muon tomography as it exists today would be better suited to assist in determination of potential eruption in Yellow Stone volcano or Mount Rainier as well as other dormant type volcanoes. Sure, generate some images of Kilauea and Mauna Loa, they'd be helpful but limited. It's all about limited resources and where they're potentially most beneficial.