Dear Nima Ghal-Eh,
as I just commented in another thread, the USERDUMP option is not on the
same foot as built-in scoring cards, as DETECT. The fact that the latter
gives the expected result is pretty reassuring, while unclear features in
the mgdraw output may just mean that your mgdraw implementation is
actually not appropriate. Playing with physics related cards makes no
sense at all, since this would affect both scorings. Their discrepancy
usually points to a flaw in the customized mgdraw use opposite to the
built-in scoring crosschecked algorithm.
The re-implementation of the latter in the multipurpose mgdraw routine is
outside the scope of this forum as well as of the mgdraw routine itself.
Kind regards
Francesco
**************************************************
Francesco Cerutti
CERN-EN/STI
CH-1211 Geneva 23
Switzerland
tel. +41 22 7678962
fax +41 22 7668854
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Nima Ghal-Eh wrote:
> Dear FLUKA experts,
>
> I am trying to model the response of sodium iodide scintillator when exposed
> to Cs-137 gamma rays using two different approaches: (1) using DETECT card
> and (2) using USERDUMP card.
>
> When using DETECT card in EM-CASA mode, the simulated response seems to be
> correct: the Compton continuum, the photopeak, the X-ray peaks and multiple
> Compton scatterings (located between photopeak and Compton edge) are OK and
> the result coincides with MCNPX¢ F8 tally (Fig. 01 attached to this e-mail).
> But, unfortunately, the USERDUMP card with appropriate mgdraw.f (in NEW-DEFA
> mode) does not generate a response similar to DETECT output. I tried to use
> EMF, EMFRAY and EMFFLUO but I had no success (Fig. 02).
>
> Could you please help me on this?
>
> Best regards,
> Nima Ghal-Eh.
>
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Tue Sep 26 2017 - 17:11:16 CEST