(no subject)

From: Tang, Alfred (atang@phys.ksu.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2007 - 09:24:11 CET

  • Next message: Alberto Fasso': "RE: Scoring Particle Yields in Thick Targets."

    Hi Alberto,
    If Lindley is interested to reproduce Wang et al.'s neutron production rate (Y. F. Wang et al., PRD 64, 013012 (2001)), wouldn't she need to worry about double counting?--i.e. to distinguish between muon-induced neutrons versus neutron-induced neutrons and so on? I don't think that neutron balance can answer the question of double counting because both primary and secondary neutrons can be absorbed. Please correct me if I misunderstood something. Otherwise I am interested to know if anyone knows what YiFang did for his paper. Did he need to modify the source code for this specific calculation?
    Regards,
    Alfred
     
     
    *****************************************************
    Alfred Tang
    Physics Department
    Kansas State University
    13 Cardwell Hall
    Manhattan, KS 66506
     
    (785) 532-1699
     
    http://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/atang

    ________________________________

    From: owner-fluka-discuss@fisica.unimi.it on behalf of Alberto Fasso'
    Sent: Tue 2/20/2007 2:14 PM
    To: Lindley Winslow
    Cc: Fluka Discussion
    Subject: Re: Scoring Particle Yields in Thick Targets.

    Lindley,

    perhaps you can find the information you are missing by scoring
    "neutron balance" (generalized particle n. 222). This quantity is
    defined as the algebraic sum of "created" neutrons minus
    "disappeared" neutrons, the sum taking place over all interactions
    in the volume of interest.

    Alberto

    On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Lindley Winslow wrote:

    > Paola,
    >
    > Thank you. I have used fluence to do independent calculations of
    > nuclei production and I realize that for most problems what you want
    > is some measure of path length density which USRBIN and USRTRACK
    > provide for you since that provides more information on interactions
    > and energy deposition.
    >
    > However my problem is that large scintillating or water detectors
    > quote neutron yields in N per muon or N per muon g/cm2 so you need
    > to score neutrons more like the scoring with RESNUC does for nuclei.
    >
    > I could get this number from mgdraw.f but then you run into
    > complications with the treatment of low energy neutrons,
    > I am afraid that I may be missing something obvious so any help would
    > be greatly appreciated,
    > Thank you,
    > Lindley
    >
    >
    >
    > On Feb 16, 2007, at 1:00 PM, paola sala wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Lindley,
    > >
    > > yes, you are missing interactions from low energy neutrons: they
    > > are not
    > > considered in the "inelastic interactions" usryield scoring. The
    > > problem, however, is that this use of USRYIELD in a thick target makes
    > > no sense ( as you already realized). This option is useful for thin
    > > target studies, when the interest is on one specific reaction.
    > > In a full shower, the quantity that better characterizes the particle
    > > fields is the fluence, that you can score either with USRBIN or with
    > > USRTRACK ( this last gives also an energy spectrum). Fluence is the
    > > quantity directly related to the response of a detector exposed to the
    > > particle field.
    > > ( parenthesis : be sure to activate also photon induced nuclear
    > > interactions, they play a non-negligible role in problems involving
    > > muon
    > > induced showers)
    > > Paola
    > >
    > > On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:53 -0800, Lindley Winslow wrote:
    > >> Hello all,
    > >>
    > >> This is a followup to a previous post about using USRYIELD to score
    > >> particle yields and possible double counting. My goal is to score
    > >> both particles made in muon and secondary interactions.
    > >>
    > >> The previous post can be found here:
    > >> http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/0793.html
    > >>
    > >> I wrote a user defined routine to correct for scoring of particles'
    > >> scattering, spallation etc. which brought my results with ~10% of the
    > >> published result at 270GeV. I then tried to reproduce results for
    > >> 10.3GeV muons and I am getting 1.4 instead of 2.5 n per muon g/cm2
    > >> and 0.1 instead of 0.3 pion+ per muon g/cm2.
    > >>
    > >> I realized by scoring inelastic collisions I was missing particle
    > >> decays which I thought was a small correction. I think I may also be
    > >> missing particles created in Low Energy Neutron interactions. If so
    > >> what is the proper way to score these particles? or may be more
    > >> generally what is the proper way to score particle yields in thick
    > >> detectors? (Detectors where total amount produced is more important
    > >> than what escapes).
    > >>
    > >> Thank you,
    > >> Lindley
    > >>
    > >>
    >
    >

    --
    Alberto FassÚ
    SLAC-RP, MS 48, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park CA 94025
    Phone: (1 650) 926 4762   Fax: (1 650) 926 3569
    fasso@slac.stanford.edu
    

  • Next message: Alberto Fasso': "RE: Scoring Particle Yields in Thick Targets."

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Feb 21 2007 - 09:35:44 CET