Dear Giuseppe,
I don't understand what would you expect? Which is the statistical
uncertainty of the scoring for both simulations?
All the score dose, DPA, non ionizing energy losses etc are cause by the
prompt radiation and fragments.
You already implemented most of the suggestion coming from the threads in
within this reply (one of which is actually your thread):
http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/7375.html
1) Summarizing: Use LAMBIAS
2) Coalescent On (you already have it)
Best,
Vittorio
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Giuseppe Prestopino <
giuseppe.prestopino_at_uniroma2.it> wrote:
> Dear FLUKA experts,
>
> I am trying to evaluate radiation damage by low energy heavy ions in a
> carbon thin target. I am using 4 MeV (total energy) Carbon primaries that
> hit a small volume target 500 nm thick 20x20 um2. I attach my input files.
> I have set PRECISIO as default and also a MULSOPT card, but I have noticed
> that the results, and error in scored quantities too, are the same both
> with MULSOPT card enabled and with this card disabled. Moreover, if MULSOPT
> is enabled simulation time is about 25 ms/primary, whereas if disabled it
> is 0.05 ms/primary, but there is no difference in results. Is there
> something wrong in my simulation parameters? Many thanks.
>
> MULS. ENABLED MULS. disabled
>
> xyzDOSE 1.8503E+006 1.8513E+006
>
> xyzDPAsco 2.7045E-013 2.7065E-013
>
> xyzRESniel 3.3533E+003 3.3557E+003
>
> xyzNIELdep 4.4340E+003 4.4372E+003
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Giuseppe Prestopino
>
> Università di Roma "Tor Vergata" <http://web.uniroma2.it>
>
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale
>
> Via del Politecnico 1
>
> I-00133 Roma, Italy
>
> Tel. +390672597238
>
> giuseppe.prestopino_at_uniroma2.it
>
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 25 2014 - 00:19:34 CET