X-ray detector mtg.
2013.9.6 10:30 JST
2013.0.5 15:30 HST
2013.0.5 18:30 PDT

Julie's simulation:
100 um thickness does not meet 2 ns requirement at 200 V.

Electrons vs holes:
	Electrons look a bit faster, due to some assumptions about surface charge in the simulation.  This can be modified via surface implantation.
Conclusion:  doesn't matter whether collect electrons or holes as far as speed goes.
Collecting holes is easier, and more radiation resistant.

Looking at timing, holes at 75 um is the winner.

John's heat calculations:
--200 um Be window in LER, 1.4 cm Be filter (upstream of optics) + 200 um Be window in HER.  10 cm Air path in both beams.
--Expect ~0.5 W total, 1 W/mm^2 peak, absorbed in detector.
--Conservatively would want to be able to handle 1 W total, 2 W/mm^2.
--Possible?  Maybe...  Chris and company will consider cooling designs.
  (If not, will have to increase filtering.)

To do:
Chris and Julie:
--Drawing of detector design
--Study heat-sinking issues

John:
--CASINO
--Draw diagram showing projection of beam onto detector (raw, and through mask)
--Estimate beam stability (angular, positional) and resulting det. size requirements
--Calculate resolution expected, and resulting pixel size requirements


Next meeting:
2013.9.25 (Wed) 17:00 PDT
2013.9.25 (Wed) 14:00 HST
2013.9.26 (Thu) 09:00 HST