Dear Expert,
In reference to the previously attached two input files, if you get same
result for both the energy kindly share the output file.
-----Original Message-----
From: riya dey [mailto:riyadey_at_barc.gov.in]
Sent: 29 June 2018 14:25
To: 'Francesco Cerutti' <Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch>
Cc: 'riyadey0293_at_gmail.com' <riyadey0293_at_gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: TOTAL FLUENCE
Dear expert,
I am sorry to say that I could not get the issue. The two inputs that I have
used for 0.1 MeV and 1 MeV is attached here.
-----Original Message-----
From: Francesco Cerutti [mailto:Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch]
Sent: 29 June 2018 14:15
To: riya dey <riyadey_at_barc.gov.in>
Cc: FLUKA discussion <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>; riyadey0293_at_gmail.com
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: TOTAL FLUENCE
I guess you forgot to adapt the USRBDX energy interval as you increased the
photon energy, this way cutting higher energy photons. In fact, when scoring
up to the max photon energy, I get fully consistent results (despite the
soil effect)
Best
Francesco
**************************************************
Francesco Cerutti
CERN-EN/STI
CH-1211 Geneva 23
Switzerland
tel. +41 22 7678962
fax +41 22 7668854
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, riya dey wrote:
> Dear Expert,
>
> I changed the cloud media from air to vacuum. Still the total fluence
> is different for different energy. Actually, with increasing energy
> the total fluence in the detector is decreasing which is not expected
> if the photons are propagating in vacuum.
>
> For example, when energy = 0.1 MeV , total cumulative fluence (two way
> scoring) = 3.33E-7 # per cmq per primary , while when energy = 1 MeV,
> total fluence (two way scoring) = 5.03 E-8 # per cmq per primary.
>
> Even with 1E+8 histories, although the statistical error is very less,
> still the two values are different. The sample file is attached here.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it
> [mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it]
> On Behalf Of Francesco Cerutti
> Sent: 28 June 2018 23:12
> To: riya dey <riyadey_at_barc.gov.in>
> Cc: FLUKA discussion <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
> Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: TOTAL FLUENCE
>
>
> Dear Riya,
>
> I'd share your expectation if your photons were travelling in vacuum,
> but their interactions with your air hemisphere depend on their energy.
>
> Also, make sure that the statistical error of your fluence values is
> reasonably low.
>
> As a side note, in your source routine, when typing any real number
> put it in double precision (e.g., 1.0D0/3.0D0, or - in this specific
> case - the available FLUKA parameter ONETHI).
>
> Kind regards
> Francesco
>
> **************************************************
> Francesco Cerutti
> CERN-EN/STI
> CH-1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> tel. +41 22 7678962
> fax +41 22 7668854
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, riya dey wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear FLUKA Experts,
>>
>>
>>
>> I was modelling a hemispherical cloud source ( radius = 10 m)
>> emitting photons isotropically. Below the cloud, a detector is placed
>> at ( 0,0,200
>> cm) with radius R= 200 cm. Now, using USRBDX surface crossing fluence
>> rate is estimated in the detector. If we change the energy emitting
>> from the source , lets say for 0.1 MeV , 0.5 MeV , 1 MeV , then
>> although the fluence distribution with energy is different , the
>> total no of particles crossing the detector surface should be nearly
same.
>> But total fluence from FLUKA results are different for different energy.
>>
>>
>>
>> What might be the reason for this ?
>>
>>
>>
>> The input files for 0.1 MeV is attached here. The outputs (sum.lis)
>> for 0.1 MeV and 0.5 MeV are :
>>
>>
>>
>> Total fluence per cmq per primary for 0.1 MeV is = 3.59 E-7
>> (one-way
>> scoring) , for 0.5 MeV is = 4.73 E-8 (one way scoring)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> With regards,
>>
>> Riya Dey
>>
>>
>>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Fri Jun 29 2018 - 19:36:13 CEST