|Message: Re: Normalization of an isotropic flux in space||Not Logged In (login)|
Click on the Forum title, e.g. on the "Forums by Category" page, to read a sequence of postings to the Forum and its threads all in one page. If you are only interested in one thread or the thread following a specific posting, click the thread or the posting, which takes you to a smaller page, which contains only the part you are interested in and may be easier to navigate.
Messages are "chained" if there are only replies at the first level, i.e. 1/1.html, 1/1/1.html etc. In case of "chained" messages the message number is replaced by the icon and there is no indentation.
Inline: Display the subject line only or also the text of the posting(s); for the choice "All" the "Outline" choices are switched off.
|1||0||1||no text / full text of posting|
|2||1||All||text for level 1 only / text for All postings|
Outline: Choose the depth of the posting thread, successive toggle controls provide increasing detail.
|1||2||1||2 levels / 1 level (original posting)|
|2||3||2||3 levels / 2 levels|
|3||3||All||3 levels / all levels (all postings)|
thank you for your quick reply!
The fact that you agree with my approach calm me down a lot.
>I see a problem in your macro, as you use "iso" for the angular distribution. In >fact, if you want to generate an isotropic source in a volume starting from a >surface, you have to bias the angular distribution with a cosine-law function, >that means using "cos" in GPS.
Yes, you'r right. The reason is that I am running a cross-checking simulation, and my colleagues use "iso"... I will change it.
>Also, it seems to me that the 2nd formula you propose is a factor 2 different >from the 1st one (am I right?). Indeed, that might come from the fact that you >should integrate the cosine-biased emission, not an isotropic one. >In my calculations, also, if I limit the max emission angle theta to a certain q, >I normally get a sin2(q) instead of (1 - cos q), as a result of the integration >of the cos-biased distribution.
Yes, the 2nd formula is a more intuitive but approximated approach. Since q is this case a very small angle, the approximation does not affect the result.
From the 1st formula, the simulation time is given by:
Time_1 = N / [F(prot/(cm2 s sr)) x (4 x PI) x (PI x (R x tan(q))^2)]
From the 2nd formula, the time is given by:
Time_2 = N / [F x (4. x PI x R^2) x (2 x PI x (1 - cos(q)))]
For q = 0.01 rad, Time_1 is about Time_2.
If a take q = 0.9, Time_1 is equal to Time_2 for the following formulas:
Time_1 = N / [F(prot/(cm2 s sr)) x (4 x PI) x (PI x (R x sin(q))^2)]
Time_2 = N / [F x (4. x PI x R^2) x (2 x PI x (1/2 - (cos(q)^2)/2))]
(I take the cosin-law function)
Apart from the differences with these two formulas, my problem is that another normalization approach has been presented to me.
Since the intersection of infinite cones originating from the source sphere (radius R) would give the surface of the small sphere of radius r, the simulation time is given by:
Time_B = N/[F(prot/(cm2 s sr)) x (4 x PI) x (4 x PI x (R x sin(q))^2)]
Note the factor 4, that gives the area of the sphere surface and not of the plane of radius r.
The simulation time is 4 times lower than "my" simulation time.
Consider of having an isotropic flux, integrated over 4PI, of:
F = 2.31 #protons / (cm^2 sec)
If we run a simulation with a simple geometry made of a total absorbing cube placed within the small sphere (of radius r), what is the proton count rate that you expect on the cube surface?
If you use the last normalization, you obtain 2.31 counts/(cm^2 sec). My objection is that the proton count rate on the cube surface is not the flux integrated over 4PI, but (using the cosin law) over PI, because every cube side sees only PI sr.
What do you think of this different normalization? And, the most important, how one could prove the accuracy of one normalization approach respect to the other?
Thank you Giovanni!
Best regards, Valentina
|Inline Depth:||Outline Depth:||Add message:|