Results are presented of an analysis of secondary electron emission data as applied to a currently accepted model of microchannel plate behavior. It is shown that the dynodized microchannel plate model makes an invalid assumption concerning the energy distribution of emitted secondaries, so that the postulated dynodizing action cannot be inferred. Because of the effect on the energy distribution, the relevance of surface effects to microchannel plate modeling is noted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
W. Bruce Feller (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: