Message: Re: Negative Current Interaction Length with Photonuclear interaction, and other problems Not Logged In (login)
 Next-in-Thread Next-in-Thread
 Next-in-Forum Next-in-Forum

None Re: Negative Current Interaction Length with Photonuclear interaction, and other problems  

Forum: Event and Track Management
Re: Question Negative Current Interaction Length with Photonuclear interaction, and other problems (Giles Reid)
Re: None Re: Negative Current Interaction Length with Photonuclear interaction, and other problems (Vladimir IVANTCHENKO )
Re: None Re: Negative Current Interaction Length with Photonuclear interaction, and other problems (Giles Reid)
Date: 07 Jun, 2005
From: Vladimir IVANTCHENKO <vnivanch@mail.cern.ch>

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Giles Reid wrote:

> *** Discussion title: Event and Track Management
> Email replies to PublicHyperNews@slac.stanford.edu must include:
>   In-Reply-To: <"/eventtrackmanage/338/1/1"@geant4-hn.slac.stanford.edu>
>   Subject: ...change this to be about your reply.
> 
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >There is little information to make a conclusion but too many things 
> >changed in official processes/particles, so I am not suprised that it 
> >crashes.  
> >
> >Few obvious advices:
> >
> >1) Never modify official code of G4. If you need to change something - 
> >make a copy of G4 class, rename it , introduce your changes and use in 
> >your application.
> 
> OK, I've been copying the originals and changing them for a specific
> program, but I will move them to different names. If I make a new
> particle on the base of the muon plus will that cause any problems?
>

No, it will not.
 
> >2) Muon example has specific - all secondary particles are killed, because
> >it intends not for simulation of all processes but only to demonstrate
> >muon cross sections and energy loss. If one needs simulation of
> >secondaries, PHysicsList should be extended by including hadron processes.
> 
> This is actually good, because I was having trouble with too much memory
> use because of all the secondaries.
> 
> >3) Both ionisation models muIoni and hIoni are not adequate to monopole,
> >because monopole ionisation is different. However, if one defines mass and
> >change of heavy particle they have to work, if PhysicsList is written
> >correctly.
> 
> I've just been trying to model it to see how well it does work. If I
> make a new process based on hIoni then there shouldn't be any reason why
> it can't work at the same time as the MuPairProduction process I guess.
> My problem is that each process works fine by itself, but they don't
> work together. Also I've found that the photonuclear process gives
> negative interaction length for my heavy particle.
> 
> I'll just try renaming and correcting everything and see if that fixes
> my problems.
> 
> Thanks a lot, Giles Reid
> 

I would propose to have a possibility in your application to submit muon, 
proton... and control , that results are reasonable. Not only exsotic 
particles.

VI

Inline Depth:
 1 1
 All All
Outline Depth:
 1 1
 2 2
 All All
Add message: (add)

 Add Message Add Message
to: "Re: Negative Current Interaction Length with Photonuclear interaction, and other problems "

 Subscribe Subscribe

This site runs SLAC HyperNews version 1.11-slac-98, derived from the original HyperNews


[ Geant 4 Home | Geant 4 HyperNews | Search | Request New Forum | Feedback ]