Just to add, that the results comparing low z materials with reference databases are excellent (<1-2% discrepancies), yet high Z gives more inaccuracies (10-15%)
A.
From: Ševčik Aleksandras
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 22:53
To: Andrea Fontana <andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it>; fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: deposited energy vs absorbed energy
Dear Andrea
Thank you very much. The note about Class I condensed history was really important in the first comment. I will definitely find time to get more deeper understanding in that. As for now, I will take a risk to ask you one more time about this matter in the form of very simple practical example:
* In the attached picture you can see the simple geometry of 1 cm layer of any non-vacuum media;
* Using ustrack energy I can follow particle kinetic energy in that regions (= energy fluence)
* The change in the energy fluence will be directly related to the scored usrbin energy (=deposited energy).
In general, the ratio between these values will give me the absorption coeff.
Do I miss some moments here?
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Fontana <andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it<mailto:andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 00:15
To: Ševčik Aleksandras <aleksandras.sevcik_at_ktu.edu<mailto:aleksandras.sevcik_at_ktu.edu>>; fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org<mailto:fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: deposited energy vs absorbed energy
Dear Alexander,
I am not sure if I understand correctly your question, but I believe that these two old and important messages might shed more light on your
problem:
http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/8056.html
http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/7931.html
Hope this helps!
Andrea
Il 23/09/2019 21:03, Ševčik Aleksandras ha scritto:
>
> Dear experts,
>
> Due to the nature of several existing interpretations in the different
> fields (and ongoing discussions I face), could you please advise if
> deposited energy calculated in Fluka is the same as absorbed energy
> (mean energy transferred from the secondary charged particles to the
> absorber) in the case of photon irradiation. The wording may imply
> that “not all deposited energy may be absorbed”, so interpretation
> that deposited energy = absorbed energy + some losses (?). I will
> appreciate very much the elaborate comment on this from any expert in
> this subject.
>
> Regards
>
> Alexander
>
--
========================================================================
Dr. Andrea Fontana tel: +39 0382 987991
Istituto Nazionale fax: +39 0382 423241
di Fisica Nucleare
Sezione di Pavia e-mail: andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it<mailto:andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it>
Via Bassi 6 web : www.pv.infn.it/~fontana<
http://www.pv.infn.it/~fontana>
27100 PAVIA, Italy
========================================================================
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Wed Sep 25 2019 - 23:19:21 CEST