Re: Anger Camera question

[Chris Alston <alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>]

>X-Organization: Brigham & Womens Hospital,
>                A Teaching Affiliate of Harvard Medical School
>Date:         Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:28:19 -0500
>Reply-To: Medical Physics Mailing List <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>Sender: Medical Physics Listserver <medphys@lists.wayne.edu>
>From: "Robert E. Zimmerman" <zimmer@BWH.HARVARD.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: Anger Camera question
>X-To:         Scott Crail <crail@ENGR.ORST.EDU>
>To: Multiple recipients of list MEDPHYS <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>
>
>         ** Mail from Medphys Listserver **
>If you reply to this message, it will be posted on Medphys for all the
>subscribers to review ...
>
>
>> Could someone explain the advantage of using one large NAI crystal =
>with
>many photomultiplier tubes vs using many smaller NAI crystal (which =
>should
>be cheaper and more stable) and a one to one ratio for tubes to crystals
>
>The short answer is that the sampling would only be at the pitch of the =
>discrete crystals in the matrix approach you describe.  And with one PMT =
>per crystal it would rapidly get more expensive than the single crystal =
>PMT array approach.
>
>And one crystal is much more "stable" than a crystal array.
>
>Intrinsic resolution of the traditional Anger approach gives about 4 mm =
>FWHM resolution.   To obtain that with a matrix of crystal would, in =
>general, require too many crystals.
>
>Bob Z
>
>Robert E. Zimmerman
>Medical Physicist
>Joint Program in Nuclear Medicine
>Harvard Medical School
>Brigham & Women's Hospital
>Department of Radiology
>75 Francis St.
>Boston MA 02115
>zimmer@bwh.harvard.edu
>Tel: 617 732 7196
>FAX: 617 732 6336
>