From: Markus Brugger (Markus.Brugger@cern.ch)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2007 - 17:59:07 CEST
one more update... not having the source file I repeated the simple
example you sent by using a direct beam going through the layers, took
the EVENTDAT and checked the outcome. The results seem to be ok (see
attached), thus suggesting a problem in your source routine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maestro [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 19 July 2007 12:28
> To: Markus Brugger
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Giuseppe Battistoni
> Subject: Re: SCORE and energy conservation
> you may find in attachment the input and geometry files.
> As you may see I am not using biasing.
> In order to clarify my problem I have simplified the geometry.
> I simulated two cases:
> 1. 100 GeV protons on a 10 cm thick W block
> 2. 100 GeV protons on a 10 cm thick W + 10 cm thick
> SCIntillator blocks.
> For both the cases I put in attachment the output files and
> the EVT_SCOR.txt files obtained with the Eventdat.f routine.
> For istance, look at the first event in the Wblock_EVT.SCOR.txt file:
> the energy deposited (score 208) in region 3 (the W block)
> is equal to Endist variables  +  (ionization + e.m.
> shower) , as expected.
> Now look at the first event in the W+SCIblocks_EVT.SCOR.txt file:
> the sum of Endist+Endist is about 45 GeV, while the
> scores in region 3 and 4 ~ 80 GeV !? Moreover the sum of the
> scores in all the regions including the black hole (e.g. :
> leaking energy) far exceeds 100 GeV (source particle energy) !?
> Also events 3 and 5 show a similar behaviour.
> I made some trials changing the material assigned to region 3
> and 4, but again I observed the same kind of results.
> Don't you find this strange ? Do you have an explanation ?
> Please take a look at the input file, maybe there is something wrong.
> Thanks for your help.
> Markus Brugger wrote:
> >it's hard to give a definite answer without having the
> input-file (in
> >case the question persists, please send it to us). The fact
> that some
> >events exceed the original beam particle energy hints the following:
> >- do you use biasing in your input (e.g., leading particle)
> -> in this
> >case an event-by-event analysis is fluctuating by principle
> >- in general, doing this kind of analysis you might also be
> affected by
> >fission (very low for W though) and missing energy
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: email@example.com
> >>[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of maestro
> >>Sent: 16 July 2007 18:46
> >>To: email@example.com
> >>Subject: SCORE and energy conservation
> >>Hi all,
> >>I am using the SCORE and EVENDAT cards to score the total and
> >>electromagnetic energy deposited in a calorimeter.
> >>My geometry consists of 70 regions and describes a sampling
> >>calorimeter made of scintillating plates and tungsten and
> preceded by
> >>a carbon pre-shower target.
> >>I attached the xxxEVT.SCOR.txt file, I obtained by running the
> >>Eventdat.f routine on the output binary file xxxEVT.SCOR,
> produced by
> >>simulating 100 GeV protons impinging the calorimeter.
> >>I noticed that in some events (for istance Ncase=2) the sum of the
> >>energy deposits (quantity scored 208) in each region exceeds the
> >>beam particle energy, that is the total scored energy is > 100 GeV.
> >>Instead, the energy balance, I mean the sum of all the Endist
> >>variables, is equal to 100 GeV.
> >>Maybe there is something I have not understood properly, since I
> >>thought that summing all the scores should give the beam particle
> >>energy. Can you explain this ?
> >> Paolo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Jul 20 2007 - 21:16:51 CEST