RE: [fluka-discuss]: deposited energy vs absorbed energy

From: Ševčik Aleksandras <aleksandras.sevcik_at_ktu.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:58:49 +0000

Dear Andream & other Fluka experts,

Did my example lack some additional information or basic clarity?

I assume that Fluka’s usrbin deposited energy do not account for the average fraction of the kinetic energy of secondary charged particles that is subsequently lost in radiative energy-loss processes as the particles slow to rest in the medium (?)

Alexander




Just to add, that the results comparing low z materials with reference databases are excellent (<1-2% discrepancies), yet high Z gives more inaccuracies (10-15%)
A.

From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it <owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it> On Behalf Of Ševcik Aleksandras
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 22:53
To: Andrea Fontana <andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it>; fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: deposited energy vs absorbed energy


Dear Andrea



Thank you very much. The note about Class I condensed history was really important in the first comment. I will definitely find time to get more deeper understanding in that. As for now, I will take a risk to ask you one more time about this matter in the form of very simple practical example:





  * In the attached picture you can see the simple geometry of 1 cm layer of any non-vacuum media;
  * Using ustrack energy I can follow particle kinetic energy in that regions (= energy fluence)
  * The change in the energy fluence will be directly related to the scored usrbin energy (=deposited energy).

In general, the ratio between these values will give me the absorption coeff.



Do I miss some moments here?



Alex



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Fontana <andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it<mailto:andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 00:15
To: Ševčik Aleksandras <aleksandras.sevcik_at_ktu.edu<mailto:aleksandras.sevcik_at_ktu.edu>>; fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org<mailto:fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: deposited energy vs absorbed energy



Dear Alexander,

    I am not sure if I understand correctly your question, but I believe that these two old and important messages might shed more light on your

problem:



http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/8056.html





http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/7931.html



Hope this helps!

Andrea



Il 23/09/2019 21:03, Ševčik Aleksandras ha scritto:

>

> Dear experts,

>

> Due to the nature of several existing interpretations in the different

> fields (and ongoing discussions I face), could you please advise if

> deposited energy calculated in Fluka is the same as absorbed energy

> (mean energy transferred from the secondary charged particles to the

> absorber) in the case of photon irradiation. The wording may imply

> that “not all deposited energy may be absorbed”, so interpretation

> that deposited energy = absorbed energy + some losses (?). I will

> appreciate very much the elaborate comment on this from any expert in

> this subject.

>

> Regards

>

> Alexander

>



--

========================================================================

Dr. Andrea Fontana tel: +39 0382 987991

Istituto Nazionale fax: +39 0382 423241

di Fisica Nucleare

Sezione di Pavia e-mail: andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it<mailto:andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it>

Via Bassi 6 web : www.pv.infn.it/~fontana<http://www.pv.infn.it/~fontana>

27100 PAVIA, Italy

========================================================================



__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Mon Sep 30 2019 - 01:34:39 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Sep 30 2019 - 01:34:47 CEST