|Message: Re: Cross sections of the reaction Al(p,x)26Al and Si(n,x)26Al calculated by Geant4 are different with experimental data.||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)|
Hello, I would add that at these energies there may be part of reactions where cascade model is responsible. In particular p+Al27 -> p + n + Al26. This reaction channel is practically quasi-elastic and the Al26 fragment is nearly at rest. Another mechanism - excited fragment emitting p and n, where fragment may have some recoil. To compare with the data it would be good to see how data are measured and which reaction channel is reproduced in Geant4 simulation. For that neutron and recoil spectra should be studied. Counting only final recoil numbers may shadow the situation. Also one should be sure that there is no contribution from the elastic channel which may be responsible for the recoil (even if the contamination of Al26 is nearly zero). VI