From: Markus Brugger (Markus.Brugger@cern.ch)
Date: Thu Mar 15 2007 - 19:17:39 CET
Hi Preeksingh,
it's a bit difficult to judge where exactly is the origin of you problem
without checking (i.e., having it first) your source and input file. I
recommend to check a couple of general important hints:
- are you correctly setting the direction cosine in your source routine
(you use NEGATIVE (check TZFLK or if you use it as in one of your former
questions: WBEAM!)
- don't forget to set all required parameters (beam position,
energy/momentum,...)
- put debug statements into your source routine in order to check what
you're actually calling and if this corresponds to what you expect
(especially since you want to sample the kinetic energy from a file (if
the distribution is Gaussian or rectangular you can also directly use
WHAT(2) of BEAM)
- check carefully chapter 13 of the manual containing examples on how-to
load particles on the stack in the source routine, read from an external
file, etc...
- you can also find some additional explanations at:
http://www.fluka.org/course/WebCourse/user/index.html
If everything fails then we would need the source routine and input-file
to check!
cheers
Markus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-fluka-discuss@fisica.unimi.it
> [mailto:owner-fluka-discuss@fisica.unimi.it] On Behalf Of
> g4736524@student.mahidol.ac.th
> Sent: 15 March 2007 11:44
> To: fluka-discuss@fluka.org
> Subject: Source.f problem...?
>
> Dear Fluka author,
> I have to use the beam with different kinetic energy
> in one run, then i used Source.f to read the KE from file,
> but i still want to define the proper of the beam as the
> annular beam as defined by below cards. The Beam and Beampos
> cards are,
>
> BEAM -1. 0.0 0.0 157.
> 0.0 -1. NEUTRON
>
> BEAMPOS 125.0 0.0 150.0 0.0
> 0.0 NEGATIVE
>
> So, i inserted lbeamc = .true. and rflood = 157.0 rvlmin
> = 0.0 (cm), which the fluence plotted by flukaGUI is not the
> same as defined by above cards. Could you kindly guide me
> how to define in Source.f and the property of the beam is
> still the same as define by above cards.
>
> Regards,
> Preeksingh Anan....
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through MU-Webmail: webmail.mahidol.ac.th
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Mar 16 2007 - 09:41:20 CET