Milestone-Proposal talk:The first magnetic resonance image (MRI)
Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.
RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
In the proposed plaque citation, suggest replacing the word "substance" with "object" as noted in Dr. Lauterbur's Nature publication. Would it sound better to rearrange the third sentence to "This demonstration was a major advance for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and paved the way for its worldwide usage as a noninvasive method to examine body tissue for disease detection?" Note there are a number of typos in the citation. Please correct and re-enter in the milestone proposal.
Is there still a public presence at the building where Dr. Lauterbur did his research? Will that building remain intact in the foreseeable future?
- Replace this text with your reply
Thank you for your comments. I have changed the proposed plaque citation as per your suggestion and corrected any typos in the proposal. The building where Dr lauterbur did his work will remain in tact.
Please let me know if there are other comments. Jesse Taub
Re: Re: RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Jesse - I just checked the proposal and the plaque citation still has the original text. Also, I did not get an answer in regards to my question about whether the original building where the achievement was accomplished in still has a public presence. If it does, wouldn't it be more significant and meaningful to have the plaque installed at that location given the building will remain intact? Are there obstacles such that the plaque cannot be installed there?
Re: Re: Re: RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
In the plaque citation: 1) Please add a dash between "two" and "dimensional," 2) Recommend replacing "a substance" in the second sentence with "the object."
Based on the Advocate's question regarding the location of the Milestone Plaque and the suggestion of Robert Colburn ,I added additional words to this proposal to justify its placement in Stony Brook University's new MART building rather then their Chemistry building, Jesse Taub
Advocate comments -- Administrator1 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jesse and Jason,
In response to Robert Colburn's comments following and Jesse's request, I will try to answer both at this writing. I hope I don't get into trouble.
1- According to my "Concise" Oxford English Dictionary; "Concise" being almost 3 inches thick;
- Distinct - Recognizably different in nature; individual or separate
- Readily distinguishable by the senses
2- Distinctive - individually characteristic
- distinct from other of its kind
Distinctive contains the word distinct. I go with distinctive. It appears six of one or one half dozen of the other but distinctive is more inclusive to this case in my opinion.
I agree with Robert's change to the second sentence "The proton distribution of the object was distinctively encoded by using magnetic field gradients".
Jason; Do you agree with Robert's recommendations and do you wish to make the changes or Jesse per Jesse's response.
Victor G. Zourides, P.E. (Ret)
P.S. Jason, I know it will be a privilege to meet you when all is done.
Re: Advocate comments -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
From English Language & Usage Stack Exchange, the difference in meaning is as follows: "distinctly" means in a distinct manner; clearly or precisely. For example, "speak more distinctly."
"Distinctively" means: In a distinctive manner; in a way that is notable for its difference; distinguishing, having a special quality, notable. For example, "the distinctive stripes of a zebra" or "Nevertheless, The Grand Budapest Hotel is distinctively and uniquely Zweigian." I believe it refers to a quality that sets something apart from others.
It appears that the word "distinctly" is a better match for what the sentence (and the citation) is trying to convey. Thus, I recommend changing the sentence to "The proton distribution of the object was distinctly encoded by using magnetic field gradients."
Comments from Jesse Taub -- Administrator1 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The following is our latest version of the Citation for the MRI Milestone proposal. It incorporates your and Robert Colburn's minor revisions Our local History Committee would like to change "demonstration" to "achievement". Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. If not, we will use "demonstration".In any event I would appreciate your timely response so that I can finalize the Citation in our proposal.
The first two dimensional images of an object using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) were produced at Stony Brook University in 1973. The distribution of the object was distinctly encoded by using magnetic field gradients. This achievement was a major advance for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and paved the way for its worldwide usage as a noninvasive method to examine body tissue for disease detection.
Re: Comments from Jesse Taub -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
In the first sentence, please add a dash between "two" and "dimensional." I think the second sentence is not as clear now because the word "proton" was removed. I suggest adding it back in. Other than that, I'm fine with the citation.
- 1 RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- 1.1 Re: RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jjtaub (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- 2 -- Jjtaub (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- 3 Advocate comments -- Administrator1 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- 4 Comments from Jesse Taub -- Administrator1 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)