The relative light output (total light yield) vs incident energy measured by Mengesha et al. (Ref. 11) (a) for seven materials, , LSO, YAP, BGO, GSO, , which show no hump in the yield and (b) for three materials, NaI:Tl, CsI:Tl, and CsI:Na which show a hump in the yield.
(a) The local light yield plotted as a function of (keV/cm) from Eq. (8) for NaI:Tl (1), (2), GSO:Ce (3), and (4). Rates used for different materials are given in Table I.
The total light yield plotted as a function of the total energy (keV) from Eq. (11) for NaI:Tl (1), (2), GSO:Ce (3), and (4). Rates used for different materials are given in Table I.
(a) The local light yield plotted as a function of calculated using Eq. (8) and (b) total light yield as a function of the total energy calculated using Eq. (11) for NaI:Tl scintillating crystals with , average track radius 6 nm and using rates from Table I. The dotted line curve corresponds to and solid line corresponds to .
Energy loss function multiplied by the energy loss vs energy loss for different values of . Upper panel is for and lower panel is for .
Top panel: electron stopping power (left -axis) for NaI crystal ; right axis shows the corresponding density of excitations at the track axis for mean themalization length . Bottom panel: mean free path for electron-electron scattering for NaI (black curve) and mean energy loss per a scattering (gray curve).
Rate constants and other parameters used to calculate the scintillation light yield vs particle energy curves for four materials. Values in bold type were determined from independent measurements and considerations as discussed. Values in normal type were constrained as constants common to all four materials since they could only be roughly estimated. Values in italics are varied as fitting parameters among the four materials. References and estimations used in deducing or declaring these parameters are given in the text discussion.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...