RE: [fluka-discuss]: Fwd: Gamma-ray experiment

From: Francesco Cerutti <Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:07:26 +0200

actually the average gamma energy is 1.25 MeV, giving 7.36E10 photons/(s kg)

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Francesco Cerutti wrote:

>
> Dear Beatrice,
>
> fine with the first point. Then, when one divides by 1.2 MeV transformed into
> J [assuming the all energy is absorbed in the sample], the result is 7.668E10
> photons/(s kg), to be multiplied by the sample mass [assuming an uniform
> irradiation].
> I understand that you already multiplied by the concrete density and are left
> with the volume normalization, that's correct.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Francesco
>
> **************************************************
> Francesco Cerutti
> CERN-EN/STI
> CH-1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> tel. ++41 22 7678962
> fax ++41 22 7668854
>
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Beatrice Pomaro wrote:
>
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear Dr. Cerutti,
>>
>> thank you very much for your explanation. I agree with you in the
>> definition of the
>> energy deposition in a volume. Also I am using PHOTONs as primary
>> particle, yes.
>> If I want to compute the photon rate, the 60Co source working at
>> 53Gy/h=0.01472
>> Gy/s and 1.2MeV, shall I transform 0.01472 Gy/s into 0.01472 W/kg where
>> this
>> quantity is per kg of the concrete sample placed around the source (to be
>> tested),
>> is it correct?
>> Then I need to divide it for the electronic charge (1.6*10-19 C) and the
>> energy of
>> the gamma rays (1.2*10+6 eV) so to obtain: 1.92*10+8 photons/(cm3 s) where
>> cm3 is
>> the volume of the concrete sample?
>> Is it correct?
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Best regards,
>> Beatrice
>>
>> ---
>> **************************************************
>> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>>
>> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
>> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
>> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
>> tel.: +39 049 8275592
>> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>>
>>  
>>
>> Il 07-10-2016 19:17 Francesco Cerutti ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> Dear Beatrice,
>>
>> I miss the expected meaning of GeV/(cm2 s). Energy is deposited in a
>> volume and with a cartesian or cylindrical USRBIN [*not* with a
>> USRBIN
>> per region] you get GeV/(cm3 primary) as you wrote. Multiplying by
>> the
>> photon rate (I assume you decided to use PHOTONs as primary
>> particles
>> instead of directly simulating the 60Co decay through ISOTOPE), you
>> will get power deposition density (that can be expressed in W/cm3)
>> and
>> I would be pretty happy with that, with no need for a further
>> manipulation by an ill-defined quantity.
>> Do not hesitate to come back with your thoughts if in fact you turn
>> out
>> not to be happy.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Francesco
>>
>> **************************************************
>> Francesco Cerutti
>> CERN-EN/STI
>> CH-1211 Geneva 23
>> Switzerland
>> tel. ++41 22 7678962
>> fax  ++41 22 7668854
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Beatrice Pomaro wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Anton,
>> thank you very much for your advice, may I ask you also about the output
>> results of a USRBIN score? We read in fact from the manual: "The results
>> from USRBIN are normalised per unit volume and per unit primary weight,"
>> does it mean that for energy deposition in order to get GeV/(cm2 s) out of
>> GeV/(cm3 primary) one needs to multiply Fluka result by the particle flux
>> (particle/s) and the length in direction orthogonal to the flux of the
>> region of interest for the scoring?
>> Thank you in advance for your explanation,
>> Best regards,
>> Beatrice
>>
>>  
>>
>> Il 27-09-2016 15:49 Anton Lechner ha scritto:
>>
>>       Dear Beatrice,
>>
>>       Running your input file, one gets following error message:
>>
>>        *** Too many terms in parenthesis expansion ***
>>        *** Execution terminated ***
>>
>>       I think the message is quite self-explaining. The issue lies in
>>       the definition of the second zone of the rAir region. As a good
>>       practice, I would try not to use too many parenthesis (you can
>>       equally define the geometry without using any parenthesis at
>>       all). Also note that if you have too many bodies in a zone
>>       definition this can also slow down the simulation. It is better
>>       to have more zones with fewer bodies than to have one zone with
>>       many bodies.
>>
>>       Besides, on the EMFCUT card you set the production cuts for
>>       e-/e+ and photons to 0. Note that physics models are no longer
>>       applicable at very low energies and one should respect the
>>       minimum values recommended in the manual. I quote:
>>       "The minimum threshold energy for transport and production of
>>       photons is 100 eV. For electrons and positrons, it is 1 keV."
>>
>>       Cheers, Anton
>>             
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>>       From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it
>>       [owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it] on behalf of Beatrice Pomaro
>>       [beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it]
>>       Sent: 27 September 2016 15:00
>>       To: fluka-discuss
>>       Subject: [fluka-discuss]: Fwd: Gamma-ray experiment
>>  
>>
>> Dear Fluka experts,
>> I am trying to reproduce an irradiation experiment due to gamma-rays
>> from a Cobalt60 source.
>> I am using Flair. I can not run the input file because the 001.out
>> file stops before reading regions, while the file .out gives a
>> generic error message (that I am reporting here below):
>>
>> Dir: /home/flupix/Desktop/Prova
>> Cmd: /usr/bin/nohup /usr/local/fluka/flutil/rfluka -e
>> /home/flupix/Desktop/Prova/Prova.flair -M 2 Prova
>> $TARGET_MACHINE = Linux
>> $FLUPRO = /usr/local/fluka
>>
>> Initial seed copied from /usr/local/fluka
>> Running fluka in /home/flupix/Desktop/Prova/fluka_2030
>>
>> ======================= Running FLUKA for cycle # 1
>> =======================
>> /usr/local/fluka/flutil/rfluka: line 359:  2058
>> Aborted                 (core dumped) "${EXE}" < "$INPN" 2> "$LOGF" >
>> "$LOGF"
>>
>>  
>>
>> No .err files are produced yet, since the analysis stops before.
>> I am attaching here my input file. Would you tell me what I am doing
>> wrong, please?
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Best regards,
>> Beatrice Pomaro
>>
>>  
>> --
>> **************************************************
>> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>>
>> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
>> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
>> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
>> tel.: +39 049 8275592
>> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>> --
>> **************************************************
>> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>>
>> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
>> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
>> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
>> tel.: +39 049 8275592
>> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>>
>>  
>>
>> --
>> **************************************************
>> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>>
>> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
>> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
>> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
>> tel.: +39 049 8275592
>> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>>
>>
>>
>

__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Mon Oct 10 2016 - 00:24:11 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 10 2016 - 00:24:12 CEST