1998
DOI: 10.1109/23.664167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Charge transfer efficiency in proton damaged CCD's

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
44
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two good examples are reference [10] and [11]. Unfortunately the proton energies chosen are very different.…”
Section: Comparison With Conventional Devicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two good examples are reference [10] and [11]. Unfortunately the proton energies chosen are very different.…”
Section: Comparison With Conventional Devicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These types of damage are generally collectively referred to as surface damage. The second is displacement damage within the bulk silicon which causes the transfer problems in CCDs [2] …”
Section: Total Ionizing Dose Effects In Mos Transistorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…is that, unlike CCDs [2], they do not suffer charge transfer problems induced by DD and are theoretically less susceptible to various TID induced effects due to the use of thinner gate oxide layers in modern CMOS manufacturing processes [3]. CIS are therefore being explored for missions such as JUICE and others.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ShockleyRead-Hall theory (e.g., Hardy et al 1998) and knowledge gained from Gaia testing. The first iteration of such a CDM was proposed by Lindegren (2008), however, his model is not based on physical theory and was always intended as a place-holder.…”
Section: Background To the Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These radiation-induced traps dramatically increase the CTI of the detector and raise the radiation issue to being missioncritical in the absence of adequate mitigation. For further discussion of radiation-induced CTI see Hardy et al (1998);Janesick (2001).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%