From: Alfredo Ferrari (alfredo.ferrari@cern.ch)
Date: Thu Jan 19 2006 - 15:03:19 CET
Hi Luca
very nice comparison indeed!!
You are almost completely right. That is, the standard option when you ask
RADDECAY is to patch isomers (that simply means 50% 50% split between
ground state and ismoer, better guesses will be implemented in the future
if/when spin-parity dependent evaporation will allow for more sensible
isomer production).
The results given in the matrix is NOT the total, isomeric states are
listed apart, one by one, did you get that listing as well?
If you don't patch isomers, the results in the matrix should be
the total, wholly assigned to the ground state.
Can you try to post-process the results of the "no raddecay" run
with the code usrsuwev which is included in the distribution, once
asking for isomer patching, the other time no?
Thre is clearly a factor of 2 between the two columns which would be
correct if in the FLUKA/ORIHET3 case isomers went astray...
Ciao
Alfredo
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Zanini Luca wrote:
> Hi Alfredo,
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for the help with the previous problem (it is a problem of my
> platform, which we
>
> still have to understand, but it runs on another platform).
>
>
>
> I have another question.
>
>
>
> I have run a comparison between the new options for radioactive decay in
> FLUKA
>
> and the approach I have used before, of coupling FLUKA with ORIHET3.
>
>
>
> In the following table I list the activity (Bq) of residual nuclei produced
> by irradiation
>
> of protons in copper, after 150 days of irradiation followed by 1 year
> decay.
>
>
>
> In the first column I take the RESNUCLEI output and feed it to ORIHET3.
>
> In the second column only FLUKA is used.
>
>
>
> As you see the results compare very nicely.
>
>
>
> The only discrepancy is for Co58 and Co60 which have isomeric states.
>
> Unless I am doing some mistakes, in the "FLUKA only" calculation I specified
> to
>
> "patch" the isomeric information with the WHAT(2) card of RADDECAY. I assume
> the
>
> results given in the matrix for these two nuclei is the total activity
> (ground state plus isomeric state),
>
> can you confirm that?
>
>
>
> In the FLUKA/ORIHET case, I did not use the RADDECAY card and to my
> knowledge there is
>
> no other way to patch the isomeric state information. It looks to me that in
> this case there is only
>
> the ground state activity, not the total one as I expected. Again, correct
> me if I'm wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> FLUKA/ORIHET FLUKA
>
> H 3 1.28E+08 1.28E+08
>
> Mn 54 5.29E+08 5.29E+08
>
> Fe 55 9.24E+08 9.27E+08
>
> Co 57 3.57E+09 3.56E+09
>
> Co 58 3.28E+10 6.58E+10 <<<
>
> Co 60 2.46E+08 4.92E+08 <<<
>
> Co 61 3.12E+05 3.13E+05
>
> Ni 59 5.12E+05 5.40E+05
>
> Ni 63 1.54E+08 1.54E+08
>
> Ni 65 2.53E+06 2.52E+06
>
> Cu 60 1.92E-09 1.92E-09
>
> Cu 61 2.25E+09 2.25E+09
>
> Cu 62 2.15E+10 2.15E+10
>
> Cu 64 9.34E+10 9.35E+10
>
> Zn 62 2.12E+10 2.11E+10
>
> Zn 63 1.47E+00 1.46E+00
>
> Zn 65 4.27E+10 4.27E+10
>
>
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alfredo Ferrari || Tel.: +41.22.767.6119 | | CERN-AB || Fax.: +41.22.767.7555 | | 1211 Geneva 23 || e-mail: Alfredo.Ferrari@cern.ch | | Switzerland || Alfredo.Ferrari@mi.infn.it | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 19 2006 - 17:52:20 CET