Estimation of Fano factor in inorganic scintillators

Bora, Vaibhav; Barrett, Harrison H.; Fastje, David; Clarkson, Eric; Furenlid, Lars R.; Bousselham, Abdelkader; Shah, K.S.; Głodo, J.

doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.07.009

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their experiments, they received for the photoelectrons and photons Fano factors F n = 0.72 ± 0.06 and F N = 0.10 ± 0.16 for the scintillator LaBr 3 :Ce with photomultipliers Hamamatsu R6233‐100 and F n = 0.68 ± 0.07 and F N = 0.09 ± 0.20 for photomultipliers Hamamatsu R7600U‐200 and confirmed these results in their following article …”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How manyFanofactors should characterize anX‐ray scintillation spectrometer?

Samedov

2019

X-Ray Spectrometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bousselham et al. in their article “Photoelectron Anticorrelations and Sub‐Poissonian Statistics in Scintillation Detectors” introduced two Fano factors—the Fano factor for scintillation photons and the Fano factor for photoelectrons. The exact mathematical description of processes at registration of X‐rays by a scintillation detector allows receiving correct formulae for the mean value and the variance of the amplitude at the output of a detector. From the analysis of these formulae, it follows that a scintillation detector should be characterized by only the one Fano factor determining fluctuations in the process of electron‐hole pairs generation. Only this Fano factor is determined by the electronic structure of the scintillation crystal and does not depend on the transparency and coating of the scintillation crystal, and the characteristic of photodetectors, and the crystal‐photodetector interfaces.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…Whether the experimental results are the evidence of sub‐Poissonian photon statistics in scintillators? Not at all!…”

Section: Interrelation Between Photoelectron and Photon Statistics Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

How manyFanofactors should characterize anX‐ray scintillation spectrometer?

Samedov

2019

X-Ray Spectrometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the value of F < 1, it is in the sub-Poissonian case, whereas when F > 1, it is in the super-Poissonian case. Smaller values of F imply smaller variance and less noise [55]. It is very well known that a lower value of F implies better energy resolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Certain Aspects of Quantum Transport in Zigzag Graphene Nanoribbons

Pratap

Kumar

Singh³

2022

Front. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have investigated the Fano factor and shot noise theoretically in the confined region of the potential well of zigzag graphene nanoribbon (ZGNR). We have found that the Fano factor is approximately 1, corresponding to the minimum conductivity (σ) for both symmetrical and asymmetrical potential wells. The conductivity plot with respect to Fermi energy appears as symmetrical plateaus on both sides of zero Fermi energy. Moreover, a peak observed at zero Fermi energy in the local density of states (LDOS) confirms the edge states in the system. The transmission properties of ZGNR in the confined region of the potential well are examined using the standard tight-binding Green’s function approach. The perfect transmission observed in the confined region of the potential well shows that pnp type transistors can be made with ZGNR. We have discussed the Fano factor, shot noise, conductivity, and nanohub results in the continuation of previous results. Our results show that the presence of van-Hove singularities in the density of states (DOS) matters in the presence of edge states. The existence of these edge states is sensitive to the number of atoms considered and the nature of the potential wells. We have compared our numerical results with the results obtained from the nanohub software (CNTbands) of Purdue University.

show abstract

“…Swank showed how stochastic variation in a scintillator's gain reduces DQE(0) by a scalar:

A_{s} = \frac{m_{1}^{2}}{m_{0} m_{2}},

where m i represents the i ‐th moment of the scintillator's pulse height spectrum. Random gain fluctuations are caused not only by depth dependence in light escaping the scintillator, but also by variations in the energy deposited within the scintillator per absorbed x ray, energy‐dependence in its x ray conversion efficiency (i.e., nonproportionality), and intrinsic variability in its scintillation processes (i.e., Fano noise) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Random gain fluctuations are caused not only by depth dependence in light escaping the scintillator, but also by variations in the energy deposited within the scintillator per absorbed x ray, energy-dependence in its x ray conversion efficiency (i.e., nonproportionality), 13 and intrinsic variability in its scintillation processes (i.e., Fano noise). 14 Lubberts showed that depth dependence in a scintillator's spatial blur, that is, MTF(z,f), causes the square of its MTF to decrease more rapidly than its NNPS with increasing spatial frequency. This effect causes a "roll-off" in the DQE of energy-integrating detectors, and is known as the "Lubberts effect".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%