Hallo,
again, same basic comment as yesterday. It is not about fancy physical
processes to be possibly activated and parameter optimization, it depends
on which kind of curve you are going to calculate the peak to plateau
ratio. If you limit your transverse scoring to half a mm, you are not
getting the same curve as the one obtained by averaging the energy density
over the whole transverse area.
Giuseppe's recommendations about enabling heavy evaporation and
coalescence, which in general are important to increase the accuracy of
residue production in nuclear reactions, are not going here to solve your
20% discrepancy problem (considering by the way that heavy evaporation
applies to nuclei with mass number larger than 17, which in your case are
marginally produced only by complete fusion towards the end of the carbon
range)
Best regards
Francesco
**************************************************
Francesco Cerutti
CERN-EN/STI
CH-1211 Geneva 23
Switzerland
tel. ++41 22 7678962
fax ++41 22 7668854
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017, Mrakbari2015_at_ast.ui.ac.ir wrote:
>
> Dear FLUKA/FLAIR Experts
> I am simulating a 220 MeV/n carbon beam impinging on the water phantom and I am going to
> calculate the depth dose. However the simulated depth dose has a good agreement in bragg peak
> position (less than 2 percent difference with exprimental data) but it does not have an
> acceptable prediction in peak to platea ratio (more than 20 percent difference with
> experimental data). I attached my input file. which physical events in the particles transport
> affect on peak to platea ratio? for verification with exprimental data, is it important to
> verify peak to platea ratio in addition to bragg peak depth?
> which parameter should be optimise for reseanable verification?
>
> Best Regards
> Mahmoudreza
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Wed Feb 08 2017 - 12:13:12 CET