Figure 1

Discrepancies in the total mass attenuation cross section of silicon between experiments from Gerward [30] (◇), Wang et al. [29] ($*$, error bars omitted for clarity), Creagh [4, 28] (□), Baltazar-Rodrigues et al. [31] (△), Mika et al. [5] (×), and this work (●). Theoretical tabulations are presented from Chantler [12] (solid line), XCOM [27] [dotted line, Scofield [16] for photoelectric (PE), Hubbell et al. [33] for Compton and Rayleigh], Henke et al. [10] (dot-dashed line, Scofield [16] for Rayleigh), and Creagh [11] (dashed line). All theoretical curves are for amorphous silicon. Theoretical predictions of total cross sections are therefore the sum of PE, Compton, and Rayleigh components. At low energies scattering is minor but at higher energies all tabulations deviate from experiment due to the inadequacy of this scattering assumption. This is one of the first demonstrations of this type that Rayleigh scattering is invalid for perfect crystal silicon. The data of Wang have a large degree of imprecision. Predictions from the non-relativistic Hartree-Fock-Slater model (XCOM) are higher than those from the relativistic Dirac-Hartree-Fock (Chantler).Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

Discrepancies in the total mass attenuation cross section of silicon between experiments from Gerward [30] (◇), Creagh [4, 28] (□), Baltazar-Rodrigues et al. [31] (△), Mika et al. [5] (×), and this work (●). All theoretical curves are for ideally misaligned crystalline silicon. Theoretical predictions of total cross sections are therefore the sum of PE, Compton, and TDS components. Theoretical tabulations are presented from Chantler [12] (solid line), XCOM [27] (dotted line, Scofield [16] for PE, Hubbell et al. [33] for Compton, and Chantler for TDS), Henke et al. [10] (dot-dashed line, using Chantler for TDS), Creagh [11] (dashed line, using Chantler for TDS), and Kissel [35] (dot-dot-dot-dashed line, using Chantler for Compton and TDS). Agreement with theory is much improved.Reuse & Permissions