ivity curves measured at two different Bragg angles of two Si(555) circular analysers with the bending radii of 1 m and 0.5 m. The diameter and thickness of the wafers were 100 mm and 150 $\upmu$m, respectively. Further experimental details are presented in the original sources.

Compared with the previous work which was based on the geometrical considerations and did not account for the minimization of the elastic energy, slight differences between two models are observed but they are found to be less than the variation between different SBCA units, as seen in Fig. \[fig:si660\_si553\]. This outcludes one explanation put forth in the previous work for the discrepancy between the data and the model at the low-energy tail of the diffraction curve for the full analyser, according to which the observed difference could be due to non-vanishing $\sigma_{rr}$ at the wafer edge in the previous model. One possible explanation to the discrepancy is the imperfections in manufacturing process, as it is found that the figure error in anodically bonded analysers is largest at the edge [@Verbeni_2005]. Another explanation could be a slight deviation from the Rowland circle geometry that is not included in the calculations. The latter hypothesis is supported by the data in Fig. \[fig:si555\] where the deviations are more prominent. According to the theory, the stresses and strains due to streching are a factor of 4 larger in a wafer that has half the bending radius than in a wafer otherwise identical. Even for considerably higher transverse stress, the theory predicts correctly the observed boxcar shape and its width for the measured 0.5 m Si(555) analyser. The general shape and the width of the predicted 1 m Si(555) curve are in line with the measurements but is not as precise as for the set of Si(660) and Si(553) analysers in Fig. \[fig:si660\_si553\]. The most probable reason for this is the contribution of aforementioned deviation from the Rowland circle geometry, the effect of which is amplified at lower Bragg angles. In the experimental description, it is mentioned that the radius of the Rowland circle was adjusted by optimizing the product of total counts and peak intensity divided by the FWHM for each analyser [@Rovezzi_2017]. Since the different contributions to the energy resolution of an SBCA are not truly independent of each other, such an optimization can lead to partial cancellation
ivity curves measured at two different Bragg angles of two Si(555) round analyzer with the deflect radii of 1   m and 0.5   m. The diameter and thickness of the wafer were 100   mm and 150   $ \upmu$m, respectively. Further experimental details are presented in the original informant. 

 Compared with the previous employment which was based on the geometrical consideration and did not account for the minimization of the elastic energy, flimsy difference between two models are note but they are found to be less than the variation between unlike SBCA units, as seen in Fig.   \[fig: si660\_si553\ ]. This outcludes one explanation put forth in the former work for the discrepancy between the data and the model at the low - energy fag end of the diffraction curve for the full analyser, according to which the observed remainder could be due to non - vanishing $ \sigma_{rr}$ at the wafer edge in the previous model. One possible explanation to the discrepancy is the imperfections in manufacturing process, as it is found that the figure error in anodically bonded analysers is largest at the edge [ @Verbeni_2005 ]. Another explanation could be a slight diversion from the Rowland set geometry that is not included in the calculation. The latter hypothesis is supported by the data in Fig.   \[fig: si555\ ] where the deviations are more outstanding. According to the theory, the stresses and strains due to streching are a agent of 4 larger in a wafer that has half the bending radius than in a wafer otherwise identical. Even for considerably gamey transverse stress, the theory predicts correctly the note boxcar human body and its width for the measured 0.5   m Si(555) analyser. The general shape and the width of the predicted 1   m Si(555) curve are in line with the measurement but is not as accurate as for the set of Si(660) and Si(553) analysers in Fig.   \[fig: si660\_si553\ ]. The most probable reason for this is the contribution of aforementioned diversion from the Rowland circle geometry, the effect of which is amplified at lower Bragg angles. In the experimental description, it is mention that the radius of the Rowland set was adjusted by optimize the product of total count and extremum intensity divide by the FWHM for each analyser [ @Rovezzi_2017 ]. Since the different contributions to the energy resolution of an SBCA are not rightfully independent of each other, such an optimization can leave to partial cancellation
ivihy curves measured at twu different Brayt anglxs of tso Si(555) cifcular analysers with the beidint radui of 1 m and 0.5 m. The diamdter and nhickness of uhe wafers were 100 mm and 150 $\upmu$m, reaiectireoy. Further expgrimental dedails are presangeb in the original sources.

Compared wieh the lrfvious work whych ews bzsed on the geometrical consideratjons anv did not accoumt for the minimization of the elastic energy, sllght differghcef between two models art mbserved bot they are found to be less thav the variation bwtwfgn different SBCA units, as secm in Fhg. \[fig:si660\_xi553\]. This outcluces onw explanation put forvh in the previous wjrk for tve discrepancy betwweb the datd ana thd mkdxl zt the lox-energy taim of the didfraction curve for trv full analyssr, accjrqing to which the observed difference cmuls be due to non-vanishint $\sigma_{rr}$ at the wafet edge in ehe previous model. One possible explanation to tha disrrdpaugn is rhf imperfections in manufacturing process, as ie ix nound that the flgure error in anocifakjy bonded anauysers is largest at the edhe [@Verbgni_2005]. Anither expjanayion could be a slight deviqtion from tke Eowland circle geoletry that ns not inclided in the calculationr. Ths latter hyoothesis jr supported by tfe cada in Fig. \[fig:si555\] where the dqviations are more pfomiment. Ascording tl the theory, the stressed and sdrains due to streching are a factor of 4 larger in a wages tvat has kalf tme bending radits than in a wcfer othzrwise identical. Even fmr considerwbly higher tswnsverse strxss, the treort prwdicts zurrectly the onserved boxcar shapw and its width fov the jeasured 0.5 m Si(555) aucliwer. The generak sfapq wnv the fidth of the preaicgrd 1 m Ri(555) curvt ave kn lone with the measurekenta but is not as prrclse as fot the set of Si(660) and Si(553) analysers in Fig. \[flg:si660\_sm553\]. The oost lrofable reason for this is the ckntributiln jf aforementyonee deviation yrom the Rowland circle geometry, the effxct of which is amplifiwd at lower Bragg augkes. In the xxperiiental devcription, it is mentuoned that the racius of the Rowland cjrcle fas afjusted by optimizing the product of total counts and peak intensity divieed by the FWHM fod eavh andlvsex [@Rovezsi_2017]. Smnre the different bontributions to the energy resouution ox cn SBCA are not truly indepencevt of each otfer, such an optimization can leac to partial cancellation
ivity curves measured at two different Bragg two circular analysers the bending radii m. diameter and thickness the wafers were mm and 150 $\upmu$m, respectively. Further details are presented in the original sources. Compared with the previous work which based on the geometrical considerations and did not account for the minimization of elastic slight between models are observed but they are found to be less than the variation between different SBCA as seen in Fig. \[fig:si660\_si553\]. This outcludes one put forth in the work for the discrepancy between data the model the tail the diffraction curve the full analyser, according to which the observed difference could be due to non-vanishing $\sigma_{rr}$ at the edge in model. One explanation the is the imperfections process, as it is found that in anodically bonded analysers is largest at the [@Verbeni_2005]. Another could be a slight deviation from Rowland circle geometry that is not included in calculations. The latter hypothesis is supported by the data in Fig. \[fig:si555\] where the deviations prominent. According to the the stresses and due streching a of 4 in a wafer that has half the bending radius than in wafer otherwise identical. Even for considerably higher transverse stress, the correctly observed boxcar shape its width for the 0.5 Si(555) analyser. The general the of m curve in line with the but is not as precise for the set of Fig. \[fig:si660\_si553\]. The most probable reason for this the contribution of aforementioned deviation from the circle geometry, the effect of which is amplified at lower Bragg angles. the experimental is mentioned that the radius of the Rowland was adjusted by optimizing product of total counts and peak intensity divided by FWHM each analyser Since the different to the energy of an SBCA truly independent each such lead to partial cancellation
ivity curves measured at two dIfferent BrAgg anGleS of TwO Si(555) cIrcuLar analysers wiTH the Bending radii of 1 m and 0.5 m. The DiameTeR And tHIcKness Of the waFErS WEre 100 Mm AnD 150 $\upMu$M, ReSpectIveLy. FurthEr experimeNtaL dEtails are preSEnTed in the orIgiNal sources.

CoMpaRed witH tHe pREviouS woRk whiCh was bASed on tHe geometrIcAL consiDErationS ANd Did nOt account for the miNImIZation of the elaStic enErGY, sLIGht DifFerences beTwEen twO Models aRE oBSERveD But they are fouNd to be less tHAn tHe variAtIon BEtween DiffeReNT SBcA units, as seEn in fig. \[fig:si660\_sI553\]. This oUTcludes ONe explaNation Put ForTh in THe PrEviOuS WorK FoR thE DisCrepancy BeTwEen thE datA AND The mOdeL at tHe low-Energy tail of tHe dIffrACtiOn curVe for The fUlL analYser, acCordiNg To which the obserVed dIfference CouLd Be dUe To non-VAnishiNg $\sIgmA_{rr}$ at thE wafer eDGe iN tHE PReVious model. One possiBlE EXpLanation To the dIScRePAncy is thE iMpeRfecTIOns in ManuFAcTuring prOcess, aS It Is Found thAt The figUrE erRor In anoDIcalLy bondEd analysErs is LArgest at the edgE [@verbeni_2005]. AnotheR ExPLAnATion CouLd be a slight DeviATion From THe rowLAnd ciRcle gEoMEtRY that is not included iN tHe calcUlatiOns. The latter hYpothesis iS SUPported bY the DAtA In Fig. \[fig:si555\] wherE the dEviations aRE more proMinenT. AccordiNg to the thEORy, the strEssEs aNd sTraINS dUe to streching ARE a faCtOr of 4 larGer In a wafeR thAt hAs hAlf ThE bending rAdius thaN iN a WaFeR otHerwiSE identicAl. eveN fOr cOnsidERably hIgher TranSvErSE stRess, the THeORY preDiCtS corRecTlY the oBserVEd bOxcar shApe and its WidTH for ThE mEasured 0.5 M Si(555) analyser. ThE gEneral shapE aNd tHe widtH OF the predIcted 1 m Si(555) curve are in line wITh the meAsuRemenTs buT is not as pRecIse as fOr tHE set of si(660) and SI(553) analYsErs IN fig. \[fiG:SI660\_sI553\]. ThE mOst probablE REasOn for ThIs is The contRibution of aforemenTIonEd deviation frOm tHe RoWLAnD ciRClE GeoMeTRy, tHE Effect of which is Amplified aT lOWeR Bragg anglES. In ThE experiMental dEscriPTion, it iS mentioneD that the rAdIus oF THe ROwland circLe was adjUsted by opTImiziNG tHe proDucT of totAl CouNts anD peak iNTenSity dIvided By The FWHm for eAcH analyseR [@Rovezzi_2017]. Since the differeNt contRibutIonS to the eneRgy REsoLution of aN SBCa are not truLy iNdePendeNt oF Each oTher, SUcH an OPtimiZatiON can lead tO PaRtiAL CaNcellation
ivity curves measured at t wo differe nt Br agg  an gl es o f tw o Si(555) circ u laranalysers with the ben dingra d ii o f  1  m an d 0.5 m .  T h e  di am et eran d  t hickn ess  of the  wafers we re10 0 mm and 150 $\ upmu$m, re spe ctively. Fur the r expe ri men t al de tai ls ar e pres e nted i n the ori gi n al sou r ces.

C o m pa redwith the previous wo r k which was ba sed on  t h eg e ome tri cal consid er ation s  and di d  n o t acc o unt for the m inimization ofthe el as tic energy , sli gh t  di fferences b etwe en two mo dels a r e obser v ed butthey a refou nd t o  b eles st han th e v a ria tion bet we en  diff eren t S B CA u nit s, a s see n in Fig. \[f ig: si66 0 \_s i553\ ]. Th is o ut clude s oneexpla na tion put forthin t he previo uswo rkfo r the discre pan cybetween  the da t a a nd t h emodel at the low-e ne r g ytail ofthe di f fr ac t ion curv efor  the f ull a naly s er , accord ing to wh ic h the o bs erveddi ffe ren ce co u ld b e dueto non-v anish i ng $\sigma_{rr } $ at the wafe r  e d g ei n th e p revious mod el.O ne p ossi b le  ex p lanat ion t ot he discrepancy is theim perfec tions  in manufactu ring proce s s ,  as it i s fo u nd that the figur e err or in anod i cally bo ndedanalyser s is larg e s t at the  ed ge[@V erb e n i_ 2005]. Anothe r expl an ation c oul d be asli ght  de via ti on from t he Rowla nd  c ir cl e g eomet r y that i snot  i ncl udedi n thecalcu lati on s. The  latter hy p o thes is  i s su ppo rt ed by  the dat a in Fi g. \[fig: si5 5 5\]wh er e the d eviations are  m ore promin en t.Accord i n g to the  theory, the stresses a n d strai nsdue t o st reching a rea fact oro f 4 la rger i n a w af ert h at ha s ha lfth e bendingr a diu s tha nin a  waferotherwise identica l . E ven for consi der ably h ig her tr a nsv er s e s t r ess, the theory  predictsco r re ctly the o b ser ve d boxca r shape  andi ts widt h for the  measured  0 .5 m S i(5 55) analys er. Thegeneral s h ape a n dthe w idt h of t he  pr edict ed 1 m Si( 555)curvear e in l ine w it h the me asurements but is not a s prec ise a s f or the se t o f  Si (660) and  Si( 553) analy ser s i n Fig . \ [ fig:s i660 \ _s i55 3 \]. T he m o st probab l erea s o nfor this is t h e c ontri but i on ofafor ementioned deviat i on from the Ro wlan d cir cle geom et ry, the effect  of  w h i ch is am pl ified at lo wer Brag ga ngles . In t he exp eriment a l  d e script ion,  it  is menti one dt hat the  r ad i us oftheRo wlandcircle wasa d justed by optimi zingt h e pro d uct  of t ot al coun t s an d peak int ensity divi ded by  the  FWHM  for ea ch  analy ser  [ @Rovezzi_2 0 17]. Sinc e the  differ en t co ntr ibutio ns t o the e nerg yres olution o f an SB CA are  not  trul yinde pendent o f  each ot her ,  such a nopt i m izatio n  c a n  lead to p art ial c a n cellation
ivity curves_measured at_two different Bragg angles_of two_Si(555)_circular analysers_with_the bending radii_of 1 m and_0.5 m. The diameter and_thickness of the_wafers_were 100 mm and 150 $\upmu$m, respectively. Further experimental details are presented in the original sources.

Compared_with_the previous_work_which_was based on the geometrical_considerations and did not account_for the_minimization of the elastic energy, slight differences between_two_models are observed_but they are found to be less than the_variation between different SBCA units, as_seen in Fig. \[fig:si660\_si553\]._This_outcludes_one explanation put forth_in the previous work for the_discrepancy between the data and the_model at the low-energy tail of the_diffraction curve for the full analyser,_according to which the observed_difference could_be due to non-vanishing $\sigma_{rr}$_at the wafer_edge in_the previous model._One possible explanation to the discrepancy_is the imperfections_in manufacturing process, as it is_found_that the figure_error_in_anodically bonded_analysers is largest_at_the edge_[@Verbeni_2005]._Another explanation could be a slight_deviation_from the Rowland circle geometry that is_not included in the_calculations._The latter hypothesis is_supported by the data in_Fig. \[fig:si555\] where the deviations are more_prominent. According_to the_theory, the stresses and strains due to streching are a factor_of 4 larger in a wafer_that has half the_bending radius_than_in a wafer_otherwise_identical. Even_for considerably higher transverse stress, the theory_predicts correctly_the observed boxcar shape and its_width for the measured_0.5 m_Si(555) analyser. The general shape and_the width of the predicted 1 m_Si(555) curve are in line_with_the_measurements but is not as_precise as for the set of_Si(660) and Si(553)_analysers in Fig. \[fig:si660\_si553\]. The most probable reason_for_this is the contribution of aforementioned_deviation_from the Rowland circle geometry, the_effect_of_which is amplified at lower_Bragg angles. In the experimental description,_it is mentioned that the radius of the Rowland_circle was adjusted_by optimizing the product of_total_counts_and peak intensity divided by the FWHM for each analyser_[@Rovezzi_2017]. Since_the different contributions_to the energy resolution of an SBCA are not truly_independent of each other, such an optimization_can lead to partial cancellation