Re: FW: Lack of USRBDX Results

Hi Stefan,

Thank you very much for the reply and apologies for the delay in getting
back to you, we had a computer mishap.=20
We have increased our region to investigate. We had kept it small while
we were testing but now we have set it to score a region of about 600 cm^2.
Thank you very much for your advice on seeing our results with
USRBIN- I saw how few particles actually reached our vacuum targets. We
will probably be keeping it at this distance as this is what is required
of the research project, however it was very interesting to see.

Unfortunately I couldn't run it with your settings as FLUKA refused to run.
And so instead of 'x=y=0,
remove the angle with z and set COPPER to VACUUM' I ran it with x=0.9,
z=-23.7, the copper still at copper and everything else equal to 0
pretty much. In regards to this problem, it is ok though it has been
like this from the start with no real reason and we've learnt how to
work around it.

I also swapped the cards around. We had them originally as you suggested
but had swapped them in order to see if this affected our data.

Once again, thank you very much for all your help.
Best wishes,
Aiveen and Matthias

On 08/24/2012 06:10 PM, Stefan Roesler wrote:

        Hi Matthias and Aiveen

Joachim has forwarded me your input. Apart from the additional STOP card
before the scoring that you should remove it is lack of statistics that
you don't get any fluence. The surface at which you score is tiny, at
quite some distance to the copper piece and beam is incident under an
angle and will never arrive itself at the scoring surface.

I suggest that you extend your USRBIN to include the region in which
you score to convince yourself where the particles go. For example, if you
shift your beam to x=3Dy=3D0, remove the angle with z and set COPPER to
VACUUM you will see it in the USRBDX scoring.

Please note that the region parameters in USRBDX are 'from region
What(4) to region What(5)'. I think in your input What(4) is the
more downstream region. No problem for a two-way scoring if you are aware of it.

        Cheers
        Stefan
Received on Tue Aug 28 2012 - 17:43:17 CEST