Re: [FLUKA] Secondary electron emission

Sorry for being so pedantic: so to have the number of electrons that are
produced "one-way", between 1 keV and 100 keV, without angular binning,
I'm using

USRBDX 001. ELECTRON 57. TARGET VACARND 1.0ELEC
USRBDX 1.0E-04 1.0E-06 100.0 6.283185 0.0 1.0&

and at the beginning I have defined
DEFAULTS PRECISIO
EMFCUT -1E-06 1E-6 0.0 VACUUM COPPER 1.0PROD-CUT
DELTARAY 1.0E-6 VACUUM COPPER 1.0PRINT

And then I'm multiplying every result in the *_fort.57 file by 2pi, the
bin energy width (~10E-06 in this case) and the number of primary particles.
Summing everything up is what I consider the number of delta electrons
produced by that number of incoming pp.
Am I ok? Because I have to compare these numbers and their progression
(as a function of the energy) with some results that I received,
obtained some time ago using GEANT3. Of course I'm not looking for 1:1
numerical identity, but at least a similarity and at the moment I do not
have that.
I'm not a radiation physicist, just to be clear as why I'm so
"embarrassed" in using this software. I'm just doing this little work
for the group (we're just exploring an idea to solve some problems in
plasma physics) but I have to learn everything from the ground up.

Thanks a lot for your great support

       Stefano

On 18-Jun-12 10:53, Alfredo Ferrari wrote:
> Yes
>
> if you want to COUNT electrons, current is the good estimator
>
> Ciao
> 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, 18 Jun 2012, Stefano Sinigardi wrote:
>
>> So, judging from the mail from Alfredo Ferrari in that thread, dated
>> Thu Sep 21 2006 - 22:37:27 CEST, which i'm quoting here
>>
>> "In essence fluence is a property of the (local) radiation field, your
>> test surface being a useful way to "measure" it. Current is as dependent
>> on the surface orientation as it is on the radiation field, and its only
>> purpose is to "count" charged particles (it never has any meaning for
>> neutral ones) in those cases where you don't care about the amount of
>> energy they deposit (which of course is proportional to FLUENCE) but you
>> operate ie in saturated regime and you get just a pulse for each
>> particle entering your detector, the pulse being independent of the
>> actual energy left by the particle (think about an RPC trigger chamber
>> for example)"
>>
>> it seems that I need to use current, NOT fluence, because I just want to
>> COUNT electrons produced from the interaction between the proton bunch
>> and the foil and that go to the vacuum behind it, independently from the
>> energy that they deposit on that foil.
>> Please let me know if now I'm correct in my assumption.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Stefano Sinigardi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14-Jun-12 12:00, Francesco Cerutti wrote:
>>> Hallo
>>>
>>> I suggest you definitely go through this memorable thread
>>>
>>> http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/0542.html
>>>
>>> since the difference between fluence and current scoring cannot be left
>>> overlooked
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>> **************************************************
>>> Francesco Cerutti
>>> CERN-EN/STI
>>> CH-1211 Geneva 23
>>> Switzerland
>>> tel. ++41 22 7678962
>>> fax ++41 22 7668854
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Vittorio Boccone wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
Received on Mon Jun 18 2012 - 19:34:12 CEST