RE: [Fwd: Re: About LAM-BIAS]

From: Joachim Vollaire <joachim.vollaire_at_cern.ch>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:19:25 +0000

Hi

The best to really compare the impact of the value used for the LAMBIAS card would be to plot the three curves on the same graph with the error bars computed when you are summing the different output files.
Also it would be good if you could send your input file(s) to see what other transport settings you may have use that could have an influence on the spectra shape.
Best regards
Joachim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it [mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it] On Behalf Of pkrai_at_barc.gov.in
Sent: 21 June 2013 07:13
To: fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: About LAM-BIAS]



I have a doubt regarding USRBDX result,

I have run three cases for Photonuclear reaction,
1) With No LAM Bias card
2) With hadronic inelastic interaction length in LAM Bias card =0.03
3) With hadronic inelastic interaction length in LAM Bias card =0.0003

I am attaching usrbdx result of one way scoring of current for three cases.
for case 1) integrated neutron/pr=1.9914856e-5 for case 2) integrated neutron/pr=1.9187546e-5 for case 3) integrated neutron/pr=1.9493287e-5 Approximately similar.

But neutron distribution are totally different for these three cases.

why is the difference? I am sending you three distribution files.






> The distribution will always be the same. Biasing, if it is done
> correctly, doesn't change the result but converges faster to it.
> Your problem is, if you overdo it, you will flood the stack with too
> many particles and in the end you will not gain in efficiency as you
> should.
>
> But try it, and see what happens!
>
> Alberto
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, pkrai_at_barc.gov.in wrote:
>
>> But in my case photonuclear target is Beryllium.
>> In this case there is a reaction 9Be(r,n)8Be.The threshold energy for
>> this photonuclear reaction is 1.666 MeV.And cross-section for this
>> reaction is
>> ~2 milibarn in the energy range below 10MeV.
>>
>> so If I keep the reduction factor of the hadronic inelastic
>> interaction length around 0.0003 or 0.03 or 0.0, will the result will
>> be same or different?(that means I will get same neutron ditribution
>> or not?)
>>
>> Pravin Rai
>>
>>
>>> If the energy of primary electron and photon is about 10 MeV, there
>>> will be practically no photonuclear interaction! Or very little.
>>> The threshold is generally close to 8 MeV and even above threshold
>>> the cross sections are very small. Secondary photons have certainly
>>> not enough energy to interact.
>>> Therefore, I don't think that 0.0003 will over predict.
>>>
>>> Alberto
>>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, pkrai_at_barc.gov.in wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a question regarding LAM-BIAS,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is written in the manual that,Biasing of the hadronic inelastic
>>>> interaction length can be applied also to photons (provided option
>>>> PHOTONUC is also requested) and For photons, a typical reduction
>>>> factor of the hadronic inelastic interaction length is the order of
>>>> 0.01-0.05 for a shower initiated by 1 GeV photons or electrons, and
>>>> of 0.1-0.5 for one at 10 TeV.
>>>>
>>>> But what about if the energy of primary electron and photon is
>>>> about
>>>> 10
>>>> MeV? By what amount I have to keep the reduction factor of the
>>>> hadronic inelastic interaction length?
>>>>
>>>> In my case I have kept it around 0.0003, is it ok? or it will over
>>>> predict?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From,
>>>> PRAVIN RAI
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Alberto Fass
>
Received on Wed Jun 26 2013 - 19:11:47 CEST