2012
DOI: 10.1117/12.930473
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reduction of optical crosstalk in silicon photomultipliers

Abstract: The Silicon Photomultiplier (SiPM) is a novel device for low level light detection in various applications, for example scintillator-and fiber readout. 1,2 The SiPM is insensitive to magnetic fields and has a high photon detection efficiency. Current devices have a high optical crosstalk probability, which causes a significant increase of the excess noise factor. 3 It may replace traditional Photo Multiplier Tubes (PMT) when the optical crosstalk is reduced to a lower level of below 10%.Depending on the quanti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, planar SiPM by MEPhI/Pulsar and CPTA substituted non-planar MRS APD because of higher PDE, lower DCR, lower optical crosstalk, and more reliable production and operation. Since the mid 2000s, planar SiPM has been globally recognized as a new photon-number-resolving avalanche detector of outstanding performance, and the planar SiPM modifications were developed by Hamamatsu [ 38 ], SensL [ 39 ], ST Microelectronics [ 40 ], FBK [ 41 ], Excelitas Technologies [ 42 ], and KETEK [ 43 ] with various combinations of pixel separation by guard rings and trenches.…”
Section: Non-planar Apd and Sipm Designsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, planar SiPM by MEPhI/Pulsar and CPTA substituted non-planar MRS APD because of higher PDE, lower DCR, lower optical crosstalk, and more reliable production and operation. Since the mid 2000s, planar SiPM has been globally recognized as a new photon-number-resolving avalanche detector of outstanding performance, and the planar SiPM modifications were developed by Hamamatsu [ 38 ], SensL [ 39 ], ST Microelectronics [ 40 ], FBK [ 41 ], Excelitas Technologies [ 42 ], and KETEK [ 43 ] with various combinations of pixel separation by guard rings and trenches.…”
Section: Non-planar Apd and Sipm Designsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, since the directive is designed to protect only consumers, a guarantee comes within the scope of the directive only where, in accordance with the first indent of Article 2, the guarantor has entered into a commitment for a purpose which can be regarded as unconnected with his trade or profession." 94 In reaching this conclusion, which gives a glimpse of how the CJEU might approach this issue in the context of the Unfair Terms Directive, 95 the European Court of Justice noted that nothing in the Doorstep Selling Directive required "the person concluding the contract under which goods or services are to be supplied be the person to whom they are supplied" 96 and that surety agreements are merely ancillary to the main contract. 97 Returning to the case law in England and Wales, in Barclays Bank Plc v. Kufner 98 Field J., relying heavily on the Opinion of the European Court of Justice in Bayerische Hypothetken-und Wechselbank v. Dietzinger 99 -held that surety transactions are not excluded from the scope of the Regulations.…”
Section: B Consistency Of Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…94 In reaching this conclusion, which gives a glimpse of how the CJEU might approach this issue in the context of the Unfair Terms Directive, 95 the European Court of Justice noted that nothing in the Doorstep Selling Directive required "the person concluding the contract under which goods or services are to be supplied be the person to whom they are supplied" 96 and that surety agreements are merely ancillary to the main contract. 97 Returning to the case law in England and Wales, in Barclays Bank Plc v. Kufner 98 Field J., relying heavily on the Opinion of the European Court of Justice in Bayerische Hypothetken-und Wechselbank v. Dietzinger 99 -held that surety transactions are not excluded from the scope of the Regulations. 100 By contrast in Bank of Scotland v. Singh 101 Judge Kershaw QC, apparently operating closer to the actual wording of the Regulations, held that the Regulations did not apply to surety transactions and his view has subsequently been described as "compelling" 102 and "convincing".…”
Section: B Consistency Of Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%