Re: Re: [fluka-discuss]: The inconsistency between EMFCUT setting and XX001.out file

From: <yyc2011_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:04:09 +0800 (CST)

Dear Francesco,
 
  Thanks for your reply.I understand what you said.

  However I have another question to ask you.In my USRBDX card,
USRBDX 99.0 ELECTRON -31. left VOID ebdxf
USRBDX 2E-4 1E-6 300. &
In the manual,it said "WHAT(4) =first region defining the boundary (in case of one-way scoring this is the upstream region)
WHAT(5) =second region defining the boundary (in case of one-way scoring this is the downstream region)".

(1)Since we have discussed the region setting in EMFCUT card,I don't know how to set region in the USRBDX card,which is downstream region,and which is upstream region.Is there any rule?This is the first question.

(2)It seems the USRBDX card score the boundary fluence.But,I don't know in my USRBDX card which is the boundary.

(3)If I want to see electron fluence energy spetrum(Notice:the electrons are scored in the USRBIN card),what should I do?

  Thanks for your time.Thanks for any guidance.

Best Regards
Chen Yuan

> -----Original E-mail-----
> From: "Francesco Cerutti" <Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch>
> Sent Time: 2014-1-15 23:45:16
> To: "nikhil shetty" <nikhil.nitk_at_gmail.com>
> Cc: yyc2011_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn, fluka-discuss <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
> Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: The inconsistency between EMFCUT setting and XX001.out file
>
>
> Hallo
>
> the reason is in your EMFCUT card which is asking to apply the thresholds
> FROM region "left" TO region "VOID" (see the manual). Since you define the
> region "left" AFTER the region "VOID", actually no region is included in
> your statement and your EMFCUT card turns out to be ineffective.
> (Keep in mind that the region number is given according to the order you
> adopted in the region definition inside your input file).
>
> Kind regards
>
> Francesco
>
> **************************************************
> Francesco Cerutti
> CERN-EN/STI
> CH-1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> tel. ++41 22 7678962
> fax ++41 22 7668854
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, nikhil shetty wrote:
>
> > it seems that EMFCUT is not applied to CARBON and hence the thresholds have
> > defaulted.
> > Nothing could be said concretely unless looking into the output file.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:38 PM, <yyc2011_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> > Dear everyone,
> >
> >   When I see my XX001.out file,I found the inconsistency between
> > EMFCUT setting and XX001.out file.
> > In my EMFCUT,I set transport cutoff "EMFCUT      -0.00001
> >  0.000001                left      VOID".Clearly,I set electron
> > transport cutoff is 10KeV.
> > However,in the XX001.out file,it shows
> > "1 Correspondence of regions and EMF-FLUKA material numbers and
> > names:
> >        Region          EMF                     FLUKA
> >
> >           1         0   VACUUM               1  BLCKHOLE
> >           2         0   VACUUM               2  VACUUM
> >           3         1   CARBON               6  CARBON
> >      Ecut =  6.1100E-01 MeV,    Pcut =  3.3333E-02 MeV,    BIAS
> > = F,   Ray. = T,   S(q,Z) = T,  Pz(q,Z) = T"
> > From this,we can see the electron transport cutoff is 0.1MeV.
> > Meanwhile,It seems the code runs according to this(the electron
> > transport cutoff is 0.1MeV).This is the problem. Why does this
> > inconsistency happen?
> >   Thanks for any suggestion.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Chen Yuan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Thu Jan 16 2014 - 06:08:05 CET