Semiconductor Radiation Detectors

Lütz, G.

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71679-2

Cited by 325 publications

(283 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

258

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Diodes that suffer from recombination have a much more complicated relationship between flux, current, thickness and photon energy (Cho et al, 1992;Gullikson et al, 1995;Lutz, 1999) than the photoconversion ratio described by equation (2). This equation can be used to identify them, since the thickness derived from tilt data by fitting equation (5) will be inconsistent with the energy dependence given by equation (2).…”

Section: Carrier Recombinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of X-ray flux using silicon pin diodes

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate measurement of photon flux from an X-ray source, a parameter required to calculate the dose absorbed by the sample, is not yet routinely available at macromolecular crystallography beamlines. The development of a model for determining the photon flux incident on pin diodes is described here, and has been tested on the macromolecular crystallography beamlines at both the Swiss Light Source, Villigen, Switzerland, and the Advanced Light Source, Berkeley, USA, at energies between 4 and 18 keV. These experiments have shown that a simple model based on energy deposition in silicon is sufficient for determining the flux incident on high-quality silicon pin diodes. The derivation and validation of this model is presented, and a web-based tool for the use of the macromolecular crystallography and wider synchrotron community is introduced.

show abstract

Section: Carrier Recombinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of X-ray flux using silicon pin diodes

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The simple expression we used [equation (5), Owen et al (2009)] is derived directly from the geometry of the diode, and the primary aim of the paper was to determine whether the behaviour of devices used could be explained considering only primary absorption. More sophisticated models including both charge-carrier recombination and diffusion (Gullikson et al, 1995;Lutz, 1999) were considered but found not to be well suited to the devices used.(ii) The neglect of Compton scattering is explicitly addressed in x1.4 of our paper, where we agree with Krumrey that photoelectric cross-section data alone can be used to calculate absorbed energy between 6 and 20 keV. As no attempt was made to calibrate the diodes at energies greater than 20 keV, we felt it was unnecessary to include Compton scattering, since the effect of omitting it contributed negligibly to the error in our flux calculations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Krumrey'sComments onDetermination of X-ray flux using silicon pin diodesby R. L. Owenet al.(2009).J. Synchrotron Rad.16, 143–153

Owen¹,

Holton²,

Schulze-Briese³

et al. 2009

J Synchrotron Radiat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The manuscript referred to by M. Krumrey aimed to provide a basis for macromolecular crystallographers to determine the photon flux incident on, and hence dose absorbed by, a crystal during an experiment. Radiation damage is a pressing concern in macromolecular crystallography (MX), and it is important that a tool be provided to obtain the incident flux, to allow the dose metric to be used in ongoing studies. For this tool to be widely useful, an accuracy of $ 5-10% is required over an energy range 6-20 keV using commercially available devices.(i) We appreciate the significant contribution made by Krumrey and colleagues over the years to the now vast literature on calibrating photodiodes and other detectors; Krumrey & Tegeler (1992) was overlooked in the literature search during the preparation of the manuscript and we apologize for omitting it. As mentioned in the introduction of Krumrey & Tegeler (1992), the idea of tilting a detector to determine its thickness is an old one and we saw no reason to provide a specific reference for this. Also, the energy range used in their work (0.15-2.5 keV) meant that it was not obvious that it was immediately applicable to MX. The simple expression we used [equation (5), Owen et al. (2009)] is derived directly from the geometry of the diode, and the primary aim of the paper was to determine whether the behaviour of devices used could be explained considering only primary absorption. More sophisticated models including both charge-carrier recombination and diffusion (Gullikson et al., 1995;Lutz, 1999) were considered but found not to be well suited to the devices used.(ii) The neglect of Compton scattering is explicitly addressed in x1.4 of our paper, where we agree with Krumrey that photoelectric cross-section data alone can be used to calculate absorbed energy between 6 and 20 keV. As no attempt was made to calibrate the diodes at energies greater than 20 keV, we felt it was unnecessary to include Compton scattering, since the effect of omitting it contributed negligibly to the error in our flux calculations.(iii) We regret that we did not make Fig. 5 of our paper and its legend clear enough. The origin of the error bars is detailed in the legend of Fig. 5, and the size of these was determined from the r.m.s. scatter of ten experiments from the mutual mean; a pessimistic approach was taken and this scatter was not divided by ffiffiffiffiffi 10 p as is customary. The key point of interest is that the data and theory are superposed, not fitted to one another. We found it striking and satisfying that the average value (centre of each error bar) agreed very well with theoretical expectation (blue line).It is true that a scintillation device does not faithfully detect every incident photon, but the absorption of air and the front window, and the finite thickness of the scintillation crystal were all taken into account in this work, and the photon pile-up effects were both accounted for and minimized by keeping the count rate low. We did not take such factors as escape peaks int...

show abstract

“…The data have been corrected for self-annealing occurring already during the extended irradiation period. Also shown is the much smaller effect of irradiation with 1.8 MeV electrons also scaled to 1 MeV neutron equivalent NIEL ( [71]). P Figure 2.5: Bulk n-type damage.…”

Section: Operating Voltage Of Detectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence of Dopant-Type Inversion and Other Radiation Damage Effects of the CDF Silicon Detectors

Ballarin

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semiconductor Radiation Detectors

Cited by 325 publications

References 62 publications

Determination of X-ray flux using silicon pin diodes

Determination of X-ray flux using silicon pin diodes

Response to Krumrey'sComments onDetermination of X-ray flux using silicon pin diodesby R. L. Owenet al.(2009).J. Synchrotron Rad.16, 143–153

Evidence of Dopant-Type Inversion and Other Radiation Damage Effects of the CDF Silicon Detectors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About