News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:CT scans of 1k lithium-ion batteries show quality risks i... by ycui1986 on Friday September 26, 2025 @10:43PM (#45392896)
problem with Lumafield is their pricing. Last time I checked with them. They don't sell the CT machine. It was a lease/subscription at yearly cost of $75,000. It was not justified for what we are doing.
Re:CT scans of 1k lithium-ion batteries show quality risks i... by viasfo on Saturday September 27, 2025 @07:56PM (#45400411)
But a conventional CT scanner costs $300k-$1m plus $50-100k per year for software licenses and maintenance contract. Lumafield’s basically giving you the entire system for just the annual software/support cost on an older-style machine. My company is considering one and it’s a more attractive model once you start comparing realistic costs.
Re:CT scans of 1k lithium-ion batteries show quality risks i... by CamperBob2 on Saturday September 27, 2025 @08:18PM (#45400594)
I wonder if ultrasound techniques might provide an alternative. If it takes 10+ hours to do a CT inspection, as someone pointed out elsewhere (if I understood correctly), then that's a lot of DSP time.

For that matter, jeez, how long does it take to just whip out a Dremel tool and take the battery apart for inspection? I must have misunderstood that comment.

Re:CT scans of 1k lithium-ion batteries show quality risks i... by jonbruner on Tuesday September 30, 2025 @03:07PM (#45429779)
Scan time depends on material composition in the object you're scanning and your requirements for resolution. You can scan a dense steel object overnight to capture micron-level detail, or you can scan a plastic object in a few seconds to search for a known issue like a crack.

Battery scans are very fast; the scans in the report took less than a second. Total cycle time on a Triton CT scanner is under 5 seconds when you account for part handling.