Dear Vasilis,
Thank you a lot for the suggested corrections. It was an unfortunate stupidity of mine not to pay enough attention at my input.
I have applied all of yours - as it can be seen at the attached inputs.
I made 8 runs of 1 M events each.
Thus, for 8M primaries I am getting:
**** NavickNoGe2_33.bnx ****
from reg. 3 to 4 ,
one way scoring,
fluence scoring scoring)
Tot. resp. (Part/cmq/pr) 3.1791675E-05 +/- 10.09971 %
**** NavickGe2_33.bnx ****
Tot. resp. (Part/cmq/pr) 3.2917935E-05 +/- 9.496796 %
or looking at the n-flux at the Co target:
**** NavickNoGe2_27.trk ****
Tot. response (p/cmq/pr) 1.6087519E-07 +/- 7.758788 %
**** NavickGe2_27.trk ****
Tot. response (p/cmq/pr) 1.6074226E-07 +/- 10.33780 %
What is the expected behaviour as you pointed out?
Experimentally, with a similar set up as the one that is represented in the geometry of this fluka input, we measure neutron flux 20% less. And we were thinking that this is because of the presence of Germanium cylinder which captures many neutrons.
Is this true?
Why the beam primary particles (thermal neutrons) cannot reach the cobalt target after entering onto H20 cylinder? I was expecting that being thermal they should behave like a gas spreading everywhere in the volume....
Thank you very much in advance
Best regards
Georgios
________________________________
From: Vasilis Vlachoudis
Sent: 20 April 2015 15:10
To: Georgios Tsiledakis; csunil11_at_gmail.com
Cc: fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: Thermal neutron fluence using USRBDX scoring
Hi George, Sunil,
The difference is not caused by the S(a,b), thresholds or physics cards, but
rather by the wrong scoring quantity in your input.
Your plot trigger me with the high energy events, while you are starting
with a pure thermal neutron beam.
You are scoring ALL-NEUT instead of NEUTRON therefore all neutral
particles including gammas, and of course with Ge you will have more
gammas generated than without.
Replacing the scoring to NEUTRON I get the expected behaviour.
Other errors in the input
Double definition of the DEFAULTS with PRECISION and EM-CASCADE
the second is not necessary.
Unnecessary cards:
- USRICALL, USROCALL
- Many of the LOW-MAT can me deleted
- EMF, EMFCUT (as a thermal neutron problem do you care for the gammas?)
- USERWEIG (do you use comscw routine?)
Cheers
Vasilis
________________________________
From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it [owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it] on behalf of Georgios Tsiledakis [Georgios.Tsiledakis_at_cern.ch]
Sent: 20 April 2015 11:04
To: csunil11_at_gmail.com
Cc: fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: Thermal neutron fluence using USRBDX scoring
Dear Sunil,
I have tried what you suggested but in vein...
I changed the LOW-MAT:
LOW-MAT HYDROGEN 1. -2. 296. HYDROGEN
I attach the input files as well, where
The results are still similar like before, looking for example the neutron flux (***_26_sum.lis files)
n-flux in Co target without Ge:
Tot. response (p/cmq/pr) 1.2499129E-07 +/- 8.447819 %
With Ge:
Tot. response (p/cmq/pr) 1.5400029E-07 +/- 12.29173 %
Also from the beam particles dont look to have the behaviour of the thermal neutron gas inside the water....
Is the thermal neutron scattering process somewhat not active in my input?
Or the mistake it in LOW-NEUT?
Thank you very much in advance
Best regards
Georgios
________________________________
From: Sunil C [csunil11_at_gmail.com]
Sent: 20 April 2015 09:28
To: Georgios Tsiledakis
Cc: fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Thermal neutron fluence using USRBDX scoring
Dear Georgios
Please try with Low mat for H2O bound natural hydrogen to invoke the S(alpha,beta) treatment and let us know. You are currently using free gas natural hydrogen at 296K.
Cheers, Sunil
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Georgios Tsiledakis <Georgios.Tsiledakis_at_cern.ch<mailto:Georgios.Tsiledakis_at_cern.ch>> wrote:
Dear Sunil,
Thank you very much for your answer...
I have tested what you proposed and its true that the beam particles dont hit the Cobalt target...
But since they are thermal neutrons, no matter how they are emitting from the beam, inside Water they should create a kind of thermal neutron gas travelling in all directions and finally hit the thin target...
My logic was that the presence of Germanium cylinder inside the Water volume should absorb many neutrons, resulting at a measured neutron fluence in the target smaller than the one without the presence of Germanium...
What I measured with high statistics was just the one way scoring of neutrons from Water towards Cobalt. Surprisingly, the results are the opposite I was expecting...
Is any mistake considering my DEFAULTs settings or any more appropriate PHYSIC card that could be used?
Thank you very much in advance
Best regards
Georgios
________________________________
From: Sunil C [csunil11_at_gmail.com<mailto:csunil11_at_gmail.com>]
Sent: 13 April 2015 07:35
To: Georgios Tsiledakis
Cc: fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org<mailto:fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Thermal neutron fluence using USRBDX scoring
Dear Georgios
I see that your beam is directed towards the positive Z, while your Co is somewhere in the -Y half. Thus the beam is not going anywhere near your cobalt. If you plot a USRBIN data containing the beam particles, you can see that this is indeed the case. I have attached such a plot. The difference in your 2 plots or the numbers you report do not seem to be very much and I suspect is due to statistical fluctuations. With 14-18% uncertainty, I will be very cautious with any conclusion.
Change your beam direction to point towards the -Y region and try.
Cheers Sunil
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Georgios Tsiledakis <Georgios.Tsiledakis_at_cern.ch<mailto:Georgios.Tsiledakis_at_cern.ch>> wrote:
Dear fluka experts,
I have a cylinder of H2O and a beam of thermal neutrons that hits on it...
Inside the water cylinder there is a small thin box made of Cobalt (target) which
is next to a Germanium cylinder...
Using USRBDX scoring -one way- , I would like to demonstrate that the flux of neutrons from H20
that hit the Cobalt target is smaller with the presence of the germanium cylinder.
But the results as you can see at the attached picture are the opposite...
Why is that?
Is any other way to conclude concerning the effect of Ge in the neutron flux on the Co target?
Thanks a lot in advance
Best regards
Georgios
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Mon Apr 20 2015 - 18:46:24 CEST