[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Anger Camera question
>References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980403111554.18687A-100000@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>
> <35254A8A.99A5AFB5@inet.guthrie.org>
>Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:56:48 -0700
>Reply-To: ggibbs@csn.net
>Sender: Medical Physics Listserver <medphys@lists.wayne.edu>
>From: Greg Gibbs <ggibbs@CSN.NET>
>Organization: Colorado Associates in Medical Physics
>Subject: Re: Anger Camera question
>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 ...
>
>
>The positioning circuitry relies on the relative intensity of the light flash
>as seen by the tube it is nearest plus all the neighbors, near and far. As a
>result, sub cm resolution can be achieved. If you tried to use individual
>crystals (which have been used it a fast count rate application), you need a
>gob of tiny tubes and crystals(?maybe 6000 or so for a LFOV camera).
>
>Chris Hawkins wrote:
>
>> ** 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
>> >
>>
>> Not exactly my bailiwick. But wouldn't the second plan require 1 PMT per
>> pixel ??
>>
>> --
>> o------------------------------------------------o
>> | |
>> | Chris Hawkins 717.882.4048 |
>> | Radiation Oncology 717.882.5166 fax |
>> | Guthrie Clinic - RPH |
>> | Sayre, PA 18840 |
>> | |
>> | mailto:chawkins@inet.guthrie.org |
>> | |
>> o------------------------------------------------o
>