Re: hac-tile energy resolution-with attachments

Dear Ertan,

first: I think you were a bit too fast, Alfredo did not suggest you just to
take out the PHYSICS cards and run... but to try to optimize the problem :-)).

I gave a look to your input file. You did not put any threshold to the EM
particles (it is important to think about it, see for example the discussion
on the list few weeks ago!) then you get an automatic production threshold of
100 keV (kinetic energy) for electrons and 33 keV for photons (Ae and Ap in
the output file), same thresholds for the transport (Ecut and Pcut, where Ecut
is expressed there as total energy). Are you sure that this is the optimum
choice for your calorimeter? You have as primaries 200 GeV pions, I don't
think so.... you are incredibly slow with this choice (25 s per event on my
machine!) and you get your results with an insufficient statistics.
I would try to optimize these thresholds taking into account the performances
of your calorimeter. With a higher statistics I think you could try also to
use a more efficient method to write out your data (you get a huge file with
the EVENTBIN results, maybe you could try to use the option to write only the
depositions different from zero - what(1) negative in the EVENTBIN
card - or as better alternative get the informations about the energy deposits
via the mgdraw user routine, were you can directly intercept the tracking).

Said that, let's come to another point. You have highly ionizing particles and
you did not take into account the effect of the saturation of the signal in
the scintillator (Birks effect). This should affect your results.
To include this effect in your EVENTBIN results you have to use the card
TCQUENCH, which allows you to set the quenching factors.

...I copy from the manual ( Note 1) of TCQUENCH):
"The energy deposited in a charged particle step is "quenched" according to
Birks law, i.e. it is weighted with a factor dependent on stopping power S =
dE/dx:
dE' = dE/(1 + BS + CS**2)
with B = first Birks parameter and C = Chou or second Birks parameter"

If you will decide to use mgdraw, you have to enable the quenching in another
way: you have to use the card USERDUMP with sdum=UDQUENCH (see the manual for
the details). If you use mgdraw you have also the possibility to analyze the
different contributors to the deposited energy, which I think could be
important for your analysis.

Hope it helps,
Regards,

Anna

Am Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:19:58 +0300 schrieb Ertan Arikan
<earikan_at_nigde.edu.tr>:
> Dear Alfredo and Dear Fluka Experts
>
> (Sorry I forgot to attachment)
>
> In my previous mail I have sent hadronic calorimeter related
> problem. As Alfredo said we have removed PHYSICS cards (and also
> LOW-BIAS has removed). Could you find both my input and my
> myrfluka.C root files as an attachment of this mail. The
> obtained energy resolution (Sigma_{rms}/E_{mean}) is equal to
> 0.2449 which is 2.57 times higher than geant-4 results.
>
> Could you please tell me is there any wrong in my input (or
> myrfluka.C).
> Thanks in advance,
> Best Regards
> Ertan
> --- my input ---
>
> --------
>
>> > Dear Ertan
>> >
>> > your cards are completely meaningless!! Where did you get from????
>> >
>> > Read the manual, don't kill neutrons, don't use leading
>> particle
>> > biasingin the EM part, put reasonable thresholds for EM
>> > particles, ,
>> > follow the release notes for the PHYSICS cards, and then come
>> > back if you
>> > don't find the results you expect.
>> >
>> > In general for a calorimeter like run all biasing should be
>> off
>> > of course,
>> > no particle should be killed etc etc. Putting cards at random
>> > will never
>> > give you a meaningful result.
>> >
>> > Alfredo
>> >
>> > +--------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> > ------+
>> > | Alfredo
>> > Ferrari || Tel.: +41.22.76.76119 |
>> > | CERN-
>> > EN/STI || Fax.: +41.22.76.69474 |
>> > | 1211 Geneva
>> > 23 || e-mail: Alfredo.Ferrari_at_cern.ch |
>> > |
>> > Switzerland
>> || |
>> > +--------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> > ------+
>> >
>> > On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Ertan Arikan wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dear Fluka experts,
>> > >
>> > > I study about the hadronic-tile calorimeter=2E Energy
>> > resolution results
>> > > (I have obtained by using fluka (2011 version) ) are 2
>> > times higher
>> > > than GEANT4-results
>> > >
>> > > Somebody used the fluka-2006 version for the energy
>> resolution of
>> > > hadronic-tile calorimeter
>> > >
>> > > Question
>> > > 1) Why the energy resolution results are 2 times higher
>> > than GEANT4-results
>> > >
>> > > 2) Which physics card I should use in fluka-2011-version or
>> > > I try to find the fluka-2006 version.
>> > > How can I find fluka-2006 version?
>> > >
>> > > ------- some CARDs in my input-----
>> > > GLOBAL
>> > 10000. -
>> > 1. 0.0 0.0 1.
>> > >
>> >
>> DEFAULTS
>>CALORIME
>> > > BEAM -
>> > 200. 10.PION-
>> > >
>> > PHYSICS 3. 1000. 1000. 1000.
>> 1000. 1000. EVAPORAT
>> > > PHYSICS
>> > 1000. 1000.
>> > 1000. 1000.
>> > 1000. 1000.PEATHRES
>> > >
>> > PHYSICS 2. 1000. 1000. 3-HELIUM @LASTPAR
>> 1.DECAYS> > LOW-BIAS
>> > 26. 261. 0.85 reg1 @LASTREG 1.
>> > > EMFCUT
>> > 0.001 0.0004
>> > 204. reg1
>> > @LASTREG 1.
>> > > -----------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your help
>> > >
>> > > Ertan Arkan
>> > >
>> >
Received on Mon Apr 16 2012 - 09:26:34 CEST